Stephen Chase Kisaka v Emirates Airline Limited [2016] KEELRC 1101 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to punish Emirates Airline for contempt because the job it advertised was materially different from the one covered by the court order.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent and its Country Manager were aware of the order of 12 March 2015 despite absence of personal service
The Respondent was aware of the order, and personal service on the Country Manager was not fatal given the organisation's admitted knowledge and the interpartes hearing
The Respondent's HR Manager swore that the Respondent had all along been aware of the order, contradicting the Country Manager's averment of non-service. The order was also made after an interpartes hearing attended by the Respondent's advocates. Relying on English CPR Rule 81.10 and 81.8 principles as cited in the Wambora case, the court held service could be dispensed with where there is notice. Knowledge suffices.
Whether the re-designation and advertisement of the Sales Manager position as District Manager amounted to contempt
No contempt was made out because the two positions differ materially in title, job group and job description
Although both adverts sat in department EBK 10, the Applicant had been employed in position EK 08 while the advertised post was in job group EK 09. The job descriptions were found to be substantially different. The Applicant therefore failed to demonstrate that the advertisement was a constructive replacement of his position, and the contempt application failed.
Legal principles established
#- Personal service of a court order is not indispensable to contempt proceedings where the alleged contemnor had notice of the order; the court may dispense with service where the person had notice
Court orders
#- 1.Application for contempt dismissed
- 2.Costs in the course
- 3.The main Cause to be listed down for hearing on a priority basis
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Contempt of court jurisdiction under Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act Cap 8 Laws of Kenya and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court; Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Stephen Chase Kisaka v Emirates Airline Limited [2016] KEELRC 1101 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause No. 25 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1101/eng@2016-06-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.