Kenya Local Government Workers Union v Nakuru County Council on Behalf of Naivasha Municipal Council [2015] KEELRC 364 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A union's bid to jail Nakuru County officials for ignoring a court order failed because the order was never personally served with a warning notice.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether Nakuru County Government is the legal successor of Naivasha Municipal Council
Yes; Nakuru County Government is the natural and presumptive legal successor of the defunct Naivasha Municipal Council and is bound by the judgment of 31 August 2007.
Relying on Section 33 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution and on decisions of Majanja J in Argos Fisheries and Okong'o J in Umenda, the court held that proceedings against defunct local authorities should proceed against the county government in whose jurisdiction the authority was located. The Governor and County Secretary have a legal obligation to implement the judgment on behalf of the Respondent.
Whether the Governor and County Secretary are in contempt of the 2007 judgment and decree
No; contempt was not established because personal service of the order with an endorsement of the penal consequence was not proved.
The law as stated by the Court of Appeal in Christine Wangari Gachege and in Wang'ondu requires personal service of the order with penal notice before committal. The supporting affidavit did not state that personal service of the order with penal endorsement was effected on the officials. Contempt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Financial difficulties did not excuse, but the procedural defect was fatal to the application.
What remedy should be granted if contempt is established
No remedy granted because contempt was not proved; the court signalled willingness to punish defiance if a proper application is brought.
Having found no proof of contempt, the committal and enforcement reliefs fell away. The court nonetheless observed that the Respondents appear aware of the order and their obligation to enforce it, and warned that a properly constituted application would likely succeed, leaving the Applicant at liberty to re-apply with proof of personal service.
Legal principles established
#- County Governments are the natural and presumptive legal successors of defunct local authorities under Section 33 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution and are bound by judgments against those local authorities.
- No court order requiring a person to do or abstain from doing an act may be enforced in contempt unless a copy of the order has been served personally on that person with an endorsement of the penal consequence.
- Mere knowledge of the terms of a court order and disobedience is not enough to commit for contempt; endorsement of penal consequences on the served order is an essential step.
- Contempt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the terms of the order must be clear and unambiguous.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion seeking contempt proceedings against the County Secretary and Governor is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction to punish contempt of court in respect of non-compliance with judgment in Industrial Cause No. 132 of 2006; applicable law via Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act and Section 63 of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Local Government Workers Union v Nakuru County Council on Behalf of Naivasha Municipal Council [2015] KEELRC 364 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Cause No. 132 of 2006. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/364/eng@2015-10-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.