Justice Mwamuye ruled that the application filed against the two failed to meet the required legal threshold to prove contempt.
The case arose after a court had earlier nullified the appointments of Ndii and Chigai to public positions, a decision that sparked debate and legal challenges.
Following that ruling, an application was filed accusing the two of continuing to act in their roles despite the court’s decision, an action the applicants argued amounted to contempt of court.
However, in his ruling, Justice Mwamuye said contempt of court is a serious matter that must be proved with clear and strong evidence.
He emphasized that courts do not punish individuals for contempt lightly and that the burden of proof lies entirely with the party making the allegation.
The judge explained that for a contempt application to succeed, the applicant must clearly show that a valid court order existed, that the accused persons were aware of that order, and that they willfully and deliberately disobeyed it.
In this case, he found that the application failed to sufficiently demonstrate these key elements.
Justice Mwamuye noted that while the earlier judgment nullified the appointments, the applicants did not provide enough evidence to prove that Ndii and Chigai knowingly ignored or defied the court order.
He added that assumptions and public perception are not enough to sustain a contempt charge.
The court further observed that the application did not clearly show specific actions taken by the two that directly violated the court order.
According to the judge, contempt proceedings require precision, clarity, and detailed proof, especially because they can lead to serious penalties, including fines or imprisonment.
Lawyers following the case say the ruling reinforces the high standard required in contempt cases.
They note that courts must balance enforcing their authority with protecting individuals from punishment based on unclear or weak evidence.
The decision, they say, serves as a reminder that legal processes must be followed carefully and strictly.
Supporters of Ndii and Chigai welcomed the ruling, saying it upheld fairness and the rule of law.
They argued that court decisions should not be used to settle political or personal scores through rushed or poorly prepared applications.