PCEA leaders jailed for defying court orders over treasurer's installation

Courts
By Nancy Gitonga | Dec 19, 2025
PCEA Secretary General Rev Dr Patrick Waihenya and Moderator Rev Patrick Thegu Mutahi at the Milimani High Court where they were slapped with a jail term for disobeying court orders barring the installation of David Nderitu Ndumo as the church’s Treasurer during a service attended by President William Ruto. [Nancy Gitonga, Standard]

The High Court has jailed Presbyterian Church of East Africa (PCEA) Secretary General Rev Dr Patrick Waihenya and Moderator Rev Patrick Thegu Mutahi for disobeying court orders barring the installation of David Nderitu Ndumo as the church’s Honorary Treasurer

Justice Stella Mutuku sentenced Rev Dr Waihenya to three months in jail or a fine of Sh150,000, while Rev Mutahi was ordered to serve one month in jail or pay a Sh100,000 fine after finding them guilty of contempt of court.

The sentencing followed an earlier ruling in which the judge held that the two senior church officials wilfully violated injunctive orders issued on April 8, 2024, stopping the installation of Ndumo during the PCEA’s 24th General Assembly held the following day at St Andrew’s Church, Nairobi, during a service graced by President William Ruto.

“This court will not take lightly anyone who disregards court orders. A message must be sent to teach those who dare a lesson,” Justice Mutuku said while delivering the sentence.

“I must say that a message must be sent to teach those who dare a lesson. Court orders are not optional but mandatory,” she added.

The contempt proceedings were instituted by Benjamin Njoroge Mburu, a PCEA member, who accused the two officials of proceeding with the swearing-in of Ndumo despite being served with the court order.

In her ruling, Justice Mutuku found that both Waihenya and Mutahi were aware of the existence of the court order and nonetheless participated in, or presided over, the installation process.

“I am satisfied that the court order issued on April 8, 2024, was disobeyed and that the disobedience was deliberate,” the judge ruled.

The court dismissed claims by the respondents that service was improper or that they were unaware of the order, finding that service through WhatsApp and email was lawful under the Civil Procedure Rules, given the circumstances.

Justice Mutuku noted that video evidence placed before the court showed references to the court order being raised during the General Assembly, but the proceedings continued regardless.

“I am persuaded that the respondents proceeded with the installation process while aware that there was a court order restraining that process,” she said.

The judge further rejected arguments that the contempt had been “purged,” observing that the installation had not been rescinded and that Ndumo continued to be treated as the church’s treasurer.

The dispute traces back to a petition filed by Mburu, who challenged Ndumo’s nomination on grounds of integrity, citing an ongoing Cooperative Tribunal case in which Ndumo is accused of defaulting on a Sh7.4 million loan owed to Sheria Sacco.

“David Nderitu Ndumo is tainted by the Tribunal suit, indebtedness, dishonesty and lack of accountability towards the fifteen claimants who guaranteed his loan facility,” Mburu stated in court papers.

According to the petition, the guarantors were forced to repay the loan after Ndumo allegedly failed to service it, despite repeated demands.

Mburu further argued that Ndumo’s nomination violated the PCEA Constitution, the church’s officials’ election policy and the Societies Act, noting that the church had previously rejected candidates facing court cases.

“For instance, on December 11, 2014, the Business Committee declined the nomination of Rev. Francis Njoroge as Moderator for being a director of a company facing litigation,” Mburu told the court.

Justice Mutuku upheld Mburu’s application, ruling that the conduct of the two church leaders amounted to a blatant disregard of judicial authority.

“For the above reasons, I hereby find the 1st and 2nd respondents in contempt of this court,” she ruled.

Share this story
.
RECOMMENDED NEWS