Kenya County Government Workers Union v County Goverment of Bomet & 3 others [2016] KEELRC 784 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court cited Bomet County officials for contempt over unpaid salaries, proving that signed settlement agreements with a trade union carry real legal consequences.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the respondents were in contempt of the consent order of 16th December 2015 requiring payment of November 2015 salaries
Yes - the claimant's evidence of non-payment (bank statements, payslips) outweighed the respondents' denials, and falsified payslips were tendered in opposition; contempt was proved beyond reasonable doubt
The claimant annexed bank account statements and payslips showing non-payment of November 2015 salaries, while the respondents' annexures indicated payment of October, December 2015 and January 2016 salaries instead. The respondents also fell into a display of falsified payslips. No mitigation was offered and court-brokered settlement efforts were rebuffed. Contempt was proved to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the respondents could raise jurisdiction and the responsibility of the cited officers for payment of salaries
No - those defences were rejected as escapist because the orders arose from a consent order entered into by the parties in elaborate court proceedings
The court held that issues of jurisdiction or the competency of the respondents' officers were not raised in the proceedings culminating in the consent orders, and the parties are bound by what they freely agreed. Raising such defences in contempt proceedings was described as escapist and hollow.
The purpose of punishing contempt of court
The object is not to vindicate the dignity of the court or judge but to prevent undue interference with the administration of justice and to uphold the supremacy of the law
Drawing on Heemore v Smith, Johnson v Grant, Econet Wireless and Kenyan authorities including Sam Nyamweya, Kenya Tea Growers Association and the Supreme Court's Moi High School Kabarak decision, the court affirmed that the power to punish for contempt protects the administration of justice and the rule of law.
Legal principles established
#- Consent orders of the court bind the parties who entered into them, and they cannot renege on them in subsequent contempt proceedings
- Contempt of court must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Wilful disobedience of a court order is punishable as contempt and provides no excuse even if the party believes the order was improperly obtained; the remedy is to vary or discharge it
Court orders
#- 1.That the 1st and 2nd respondents and her officers namely, the Governor – Bomet County, Human Resource Manager – County Government of Bomet, Payroll Manager Bomet County Government, and Acting County Secretary – Bomet County, be and are hereby cited for contempt of court
- 2.That the contemnors be and are hereby awarded seven (7) days to purge this contempt of court
- 3.That a mention be had on 26th July, 2016 at 900 hours for a report by the respondents on the purge of contempt
- 4.That this court be and is hereby at liberty to make further orders and directions at the date of mention
- 5.The costs of this application shall be borne by the respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act (power to punish for contempt, extending to upholding the authority and dignity of subordinate courts); contempt of the court's own consent orders of 16th December 2015
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya County Government Workers Union v County Goverment of Bomet & 3 others [2016] KEELRC 784 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/784/eng@2016-07-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.