Geoffrey Mosiria, Chief Officer for Environment at the Nairobi City County Government, has been found guilty of contempt of court for personally authorising construction works in direct violation of a judicial order that halted development in the Parklands area.
The Environment and Land Court passed this petition ruling against Mosiria after his signature was found on excavation permits issued in defiance of its directive. The case was brought by the Parklands Residents Association through their legal representatives, A.N. Ndambiri & Co. Advocates, who argued that “court orders must be respected to uphold the rule of law and maintain public confidence in the justice system.”
Mosiria was represented in the proceedings by Senior Counsel Danstan Omari and Advocate Shadrack Wambua, who argued in his defence.
The court’s ruling, delivered on 14 October 2025 by Principal Judge O. A. Angote, Judge A. Omollo and Judge C. G. Mbogo, hinged on two documents: an “Authority to Excavate and Transport Soil” dated 17 March 2025 and another dated 14 May 2025. Both permits, which authorised work on a property linked to Grandpine Company Limited, bore Mosiria’s signature as the County Chief Officer for Environment.
This proved to be the central and conclusive evidence against him. “Contempt of court is personal in nature, and liability can only be imposed on a person who is directly responsible for violating the order,” the three-judge bench stated. “Therefore, the author of the impugned letters of authority, Geoffrey Mosiria, is found to be in contempt of the orders of this court.”
The case stems from a broader legal challenge by the Parklands Residents Association, which sought to stop what it describes as unplanned and illegal construction in the suburb. On 5 March 2025, the court issued a conservatory order to pause all new development, specifically restraining the Nairobi City County and its planning committees from “considering and or processing any application for development permission on properties located in the areas stated.”
This order was still in effect when residents reported seeing excavation and tree-felling activities, prompting them to file contempt proceedings against several county officials and the developers.
In their defence, the county officials argued that the permits they issued were not new development permissions but merely compliant with conditions of an earlier approval granted before the court order. They contended that preparatory works like excavation did not qualify as “development.”
The court, however, firmly rejected this argument. It referred to the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, which defines development as “carrying out any works on land,” and found that the county’s actions were a clear breach.
The judges noted, “We believe that the conditions for approving a development permit… are separate and distinct requirements. If the permit dated 13th February 2025 was sufficient, then there would have been no basis for the developer… to apply for additional permits.”
While the court discharged the other named county officials and the private developers for lack of evidence or because the order did not bind them, Mosiria’s personal culpability was cemented by his own hand.
The ruling underscores the principle that court orders are not mere suggestions but binding directives. Mosiria must now await a separate hearing where he will have an opportunity to mitigate before the court determines his sentence.
