The High Court in Nairobi has found lawyer Omondi Patrick Churchill Midwa in contempt of court for failing to account for and release money belonging to a client from the sale of a property, giving him an opportunity to comply with the orders before sentencing.
Justice lady justice Josephine Wayua Mongare ruled that Midwa had failed to comply with court orders requiring him to account for all money received while acting for Mridula Bhadresh Patel in the sale of House No. 3 on Nairobi Block 35/195 and release the funds held by his law firm from the transaction.
The court directed the lawyer to comply with the orders or face sentencing on July 31, 2026, when the matter was scheduled for mention to assess compliance.
In the ruling delivered virtually on July 17, Justice Mongare dismissed Midwa’s objections to the proceedings, finding that the court had the authority to enforce its interim orders even though the underlying case had not been finally determined.
The judge held that the advocate had been directed on November 12, 2025, to provide an account of the proceeds received from the property transaction and release the money held on Patel’s behalf.
The orders also allowed execution against him for the sums held if he failed to comply.
A notice to show cause was subsequently issued on November 24, 2025, requiring Midwa to explain why he should not be punished for disobeying the court’s directives.
Patel argued that lawyer Midwa had received the client’s money and had acknowledged owing the funds, save for a small disputed portion.
He told the court that Midwa had failed to comply with the payment order and had not provided a credible explanation for withholding the money.
He further argued that the advocate had neither demonstrated an inability to pay nor proposed an alternative means of settling the outstanding amount.
Through his submissions, Patel urged the court to issue a warrant of arrest, commit the advocate to civil jail and award him costs, arguing that Midwa’s conduct undermined public confidence in the legal profession and the administration of justice.
Midwa opposed the application, arguing that the notice to show cause had been issued unlawfully because there was no formal application supporting it.
He also contended that the enforcement proceedings were premature because the originating summons had not been determined and no final judgment or decree had been issued.
The advocate further argued that the proceedings did not comply with the applicable legal procedures governing contempt of court and the handling of disputes involving client funds held by advocates.
However, Justice Mongare rejected those arguments, holding that the court had inherent powers under the Civil Procedure Act and the Judicature Act to enforce its lawful orders, including interim directions issued before the final determination of a case.
The judge said that court orders must be obeyed by all parties, regardless of their status, and that a party who considers an order irregular should seek to have it set aside rather than disregard it.
“The court proceedings and record speaks for itself and a party cannot defeat enforcement by simply denying the existence of an order on affidavit,” the judge stated.
The court also found that the order had been served at the advocate’s office on November 14, 2025, and acknowledged by his clerk.
The order contained a penal notice warning of the consequences of non-compliance.
Justice Mongare ruled that Midwa had neither released the money nor provided the required account, instead raising procedural objections without offering a credible explanation for his failure to comply.
In finding him guilty of contempt, the judge relied on established legal principles requiring courts to be satisfied that an order is clear, the person accused of disobedience had knowledge of it, and the breach had been proved to the required standard.
The court cited decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court emphasising that contempt proceedings require a high standard of proof and that an alleged contemnor must be afforded a fair opportunity to defend himself.
The judge, however, declined to impose an immediate sentence, giving the advocate an opportunity to purge the contempt by complying with the existing orders.
The matter was scheduled for mention on July 31, 2026, to confirm compliance and determine the next course of action.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@Kahawatungu.com — this is our only official communication channel
