BENARD NYANYUKI NYAKINA AND 301 OTHERS V POLYSACK LIMITED [2012] KEELRC 33 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court found a company director in contempt for defying orders to reinstate workers, confirming that ignoring court orders carries consequences even mid-dispute.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Definition and scope of contempt of court
Contempt is a disregard of or disobedience to orders of a judicial body; any act at variance with a court order remains contemptuous even if the perpetrator considers it legitimate.
The court adopted Black's Law Dictionary definition of contempt and reasoned that disobedience which lowers the standing of the court is contemptuous. It stressed that a perpetrator's belief in the legitimacy of the act is irrelevant where the act contravenes an existing order, laying the foundation for finding the respondent in contempt of the orders of 20th September and 5th October 2012.
Whether the respondent was served with the orders and the contempt application
Service was duly effected; the respondent was personally served but declined to sign, and thereafter acted through advocates who had instructions to appear.
The affidavit of service showed the process server personally met the respondent and served the application and penal notice, which he declined to sign or stamp. The replying affidavit, sworn by the Human Resource Manager, did not deny service. Counsel appearing for the respondent confirmed instructions. The court therefore rejected the argument that service was not proved.
Whether the respondent disobeyed the orders of 20th September 2012 and 5th October 2012
Yes. By treating the purportedly dismissed workers as dismissed and sending terminal benefits to the Thika Labour Office, the respondent defied the order that claimants resume duty immediately.
The ruling of 5th October 2012 ordered the claimants to resume duty with immediate effect and the parties to maintain industrial peace. The respondent instead sent terminal benefits to the labour office, proceeding on the presumption of dismissal, and the pay slips showed absent days for workers expected to be on duty. The court found no interpretation of the order was needed.
Legal principles established
#- Wilful disobedience of a court order is punishable as contempt, and even if a party believes an injunction was improperly obtained or too wide, that is no excuse for disobeying it; the remedy is to vary or discharge it.
- An act which brings the standing of the court lower through disobedience of its orders is contemptuous even if the perpetrator believes it legitimate in the circumstances.
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent Diamond Lalji is cited for contempt of the court orders made on 20th September 2012 and 5th October 2012
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 14 of the Labour Institutions Act 2007, Sections 12 and 13 of the Industrial Court Act 2011 and Section 5 of the Judicature Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "BENARD NYANYUKI NYAKINA AND 301 OTHERS V POLYSACK LIMITED [2012] KEELRC 33 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2012). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2012/33/eng@2012-11-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.