Vincent Edward Njoroge & 2 Others v Kenol Kobil Ltd [2014] KEELRC 1095 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court fined Kenol Kobil's General Manager Kshs 1 million for ignoring orders barring employee terminations, confirming managers personally answer for defying court orders.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether contempt proceedings against David Ohana were an absurdity given he is also an employee of Kenol Kobil
Rejected; as General Manager he fell within the category of persons to whom the orders were directed and cannot rely on his employee status.
The Court held that the orders of 14th August 2012 were directed at Kenol Kobil Limited, its Managers, Directors and Agents, and as General Manager David Ohana clearly fell within that category. Managers, though employees, carry management responsibility including compliance with court orders and cannot hide behind their employee status to escape accountability.
Whether service on Ms. Olympia of the Legal Department, rather than on David Ohana personally, was sufficient
Yes; service on an appropriate member of management was proper service, and in any event knowledge supersedes personal service in contempt matters.
Relying on Halsbury's Laws and Order 52 Rule 3(1) of the England Supreme Court Practice Rules, the Court noted the general rule of personal service but held that where the disobeying party had knowledge of the order, punishment is properly due. Service on the Legal Department was service on an appropriate member of management, and there was no averment that the order was not brought to David Ohana's attention.
Whether David Ohana's termination of employees' employment between 28th and 31st August 2012 constituted willful disobedience of the orders of 14th August 2012
Yes; he knowingly and willfully violated the orders and was cited for contempt.
The termination letters, issued after knowledge of the orders, related to the suit upon which the interim orders were issued and could not contribute to the industrial peace the Court had ordered to be maintained. Following Mutitika v Baharini Farm, a person who knowingly and willfully breaches an order is liable to be committed for contempt.
Legal principles established
#- Knowledge of a court order supersedes personal service; where a party has knowledge of the order, personal service is unnecessary for contempt.
- A person who, knowing of a court order, willfully breaches it is liable to be committed for contempt.
- Managers, though themselves employees, cannot use their employee status to avoid responsibility for compliance with court orders.
- Thinking an order improperly obtained is no excuse for disobeying it; the remedy is to vary or discharge it.
Court orders
#- 1.David Ohana is cited for contempt of court for knowingly and willfully violating the orders of 14th August 2012
- 2.David Ohana shall pay a fine of Kshs. 1,000,000, in default he shall be committed to civil jail for thirty (30) days, effective immediately
- 3.The prayer to nullify decisions made by David Ohana after 14th August 2012 was not granted, no arguments having been advanced
- 4.Costs of the application to be met by the Contemnor
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to punish contempt of its orders (leave granted 4th September 2012)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Vincent Edward Njoroge & 2 Others v Kenol Kobil Ltd [2014] KEELRC 1095 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Contempt of Court proceedings arising from application dated 10th September 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/1095/eng@2014-06-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.