Mosiria seeks to reverse court orders finding him guilty of contempt
By Zipporah Ngwatu, February 2, 2026Nairobi Chief Officer for Citizen Engagement and Customer Service, Geoffrey Mosiri, now wants the court to set aside orders that found him guilty of contempt of court.
Through submissions filed in court, Mosiria seeks to have the orders that found him in contempt of court reversed or vacated.
“That this honourable court be pleased to review, rescind, vary, reverse, or set aside the orders made on October 14, 2025, finding Geoffrey Mosiria in contempt of the orders of this court issued on March 5, 2025,” part of the application reads.
On October 14, 2025, the court found Mosiria guilty of contempt of orders issued on March 5, 2025, in a Parklands land case.
The alleged acts of contempt involved the issuance of authority to excavate and transport soil dated March 17, 2025, and May 14, 2025, respectively.
The court had ordered him to appear physically before it on November 4, 2025, for mitigation and sentencing.
However, the Nairobi County staffer did not appear in court, and his legal team informed the court that their client had been taken ill after learning that he might be jailed.
Further, the court heard that Mosiria maintained that he did not sign the said permits, being the authority to excavate and transport soil on diverse dates in May 2025.
He argues that the signatures on the aforesaid permits are mere forgeries purporting to be his, and that the said permits were never issued from his office at the time to trigger the contempt proceedings against him.
In addition, he states that there are no records in the Department of Environment to prove the alleged issuance.
“The permits dispatch register, which enumerates all issued permits, does not contain any of the aforesaid permits purported to have been issued on the said dates of March 17, 2025, and May 14, 2025,” part of the application reads.
The court papers also reveal that Dignity Forensic Document Examiners carried out a forensic evaluation and produced a report stating that the signatures on the said permits are dissimilar and distinguishable when compared with specimen known signatures, thereby providing forensic evidence of different authorship.