The High Court has found Health Cabinet Secretary Aden Duale in continuing contempt of court over the ongoing construction of an Ebola-related facility at Laikipia airbase, ruling that the government could not evade earlier suspension orders by rebranding the works as a local public health preparedness project.
Justice Patricia Nyaundi directed Duale, who is listed as the 2nd respondent in the case, to appear in court on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, at 11am for mitigation and sentencing.
The ruling followed an application dated June 10, 2026, in which the petitioner asked the court to cite the Attorney General and the Health CS for contempt over alleged disobedience of orders issued on May 28 and confirmed on June 2.
Those orders restrained the respondents from establishing, operationalizing or approving any Ebola-related quarantine, isolation or treatment facility in Kenya pursuant to any agreement with the United States or any foreign government or agency, pending the hearing and determination of the petition.
The orders also required the Health CS to disclose, within seven days, the full terms of any agreement or negotiations relating to the proposed facility, as well as public health, environmental, biosafety and security assessments, approvals from relevant agencies, and protocols for handling exposed persons.
In her ruling, Justice Nyaundi said the first two elements required to prove civil contempt were not in dispute.
She noted that Duale had acknowledged that he was aware of the court orders and understood them to require suspension of construction at Laikipia airbase, as well as disclosure of the relevant framework and protocols.
“The 2nd Respondent acknowledges that he was aware of the court’s orders and understood them to require suspension of construction at the Laikipia Airbase and disclosure of the relevant framework and protocols,” the judge said.
The petitioners argued that despite the court orders, construction at the airbase continued. They relied on media reports, satellite images and public statements, including claims that aircraft carrying equipment and personnel had landed in Nanyuki after the orders were issued.
They also accused the State of failing to provide all documents required under the court’s disclosure order.
The government opposed the application, arguing that the petitioners had misconstrued the scope of the court orders. Duale told the court that the government had suspended all activities being undertaken under the Kenya-US collaboration on the proposed Ebola quarantine and isolation facility.
However, the respondents maintained that the orders did not stop the government from carrying out its independent constitutional and statutory duties on public health preparedness, disease prevention and national health security.
They argued that any ongoing works at Laikipia Airbase were part of Kenya’s own precautionary measures and not the suspended bilateral arrangement with the United States.
Justice Nyaundi rejected that argument, finding that the government’s position amounted to an attempt to recharacterize the same construction that had been stopped by the court.
“What the 2nd Respondent seeks to do, is to avoid compliance by recasting or re-characterizing the ongoing construction,” the judge said.
She added that Duale had conceded that he understood the court to have required suspension of construction, but then adopted a narrower interpretation that allowed him to continue the same activities on the basis that they were being undertaken without the United States.
“Knowing full well that the court required all construction activities at Laikipia airbase to cease, he persuaded himself that he could continue by altering the composition of the actors rather than the substance of the conduct,” the judge ruled.
Justice Nyaundi said Duale’s public statements, which she said were widely reported and not disavowed, reinforced the conclusion that he intended construction to proceed despite the court’s orders.
“The inference is unavoidable: the 2nd Respondent believed he could insulate himself from liability by shifting from joint action to unilateral action,” she said.
The judge was emphatic that court orders must be obeyed as issued and cannot be evaded through technical distinctions.
“An order of the court is not to be outflanked by semantics or evasion. The duty is to obey the order, as issued, not as one might wish it had been framed,” she said.
In one of the strongest passages of the ruling, Justice Nyaundi said: “A court order is not an invitation to ingenuity; it is a command to be obeyed.”
She added that attempts to re-label or re-describe conduct to place it outside the reach of a court order do not shield a respondent from liability.
“The court looks to the substance of what was done, not the gloss placed upon it,” she said.
The judge also held that compliance obligations attach personally to the office holder and are determined by the substance of the restrained conduct, not the identity of the collaborators involved.
“To suggest that one may circumvent a binding order by altering the configuration of actors is to trivialize the authority of this court and to elevate form over constitutional fidelity,” she said.
However, the court declined to find the respondents in contempt over the disclosure order. Justice Nyaundi found that the disclosure obligation attached only to the Health CS and not to the Attorney General.
She said the petitioners had disputed the sufficiency of the documents provided but had not demonstrated the existence of additional documents that were withheld.
“In the absence of contrary evidence, I accept the Cabinet Secretary’s representation that the documents furnished constitute the full extent of the material available to him,” the judge said.
The court therefore found that the contempt charge relating to disclosure could not succeed.
On construction, however, the judge reached a different conclusion.
“I find that in commissioning the ongoing construction of the facility at Laikipia, the 2nd Respondent is in continuing contempt of the orders of the court that issued on 28th May 2026 and confirmed on 2nd June 2026,” Justice Nyaundi ruled.
The case now moves to mitigation and sentencing, where the court will determine the sanction to impose on the Health CS.
Follow our social media pages for breaking news updates, in-depth stories and videos.
news@nairobilens.ke
