Abednego Reuben Okarikodi Etyang’a v Attorney General & 4 others [2016] KEELRC 1726 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered the government to restore a civil servant's frozen salary, ruling that nobody—not even the state—may disobey court orders.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the respondents wilfully defied the interim orders of 27th July 2015 and 13th August 2015
The respondents were in defiance; the alleged difficulties in reinstating the claimant's pay were self-inflicted since his employment was never terminated and the integrated payroll is centrally controlled
The court found the PSC maintains an integrated payroll from which all civil servants draw salaries, removable only upon termination. The claimant's employment was not terminated, so removal from IPPD was unjustified. The respondents' hastily transferring his records to the Ministry of Agriculture after the order could not excuse non-compliance; the order pre-existed that movement.
Whether the respondents satisfied the requirements for review
The review application lacked merit
The respondents sought to justify failure to obey court orders and to enlist the court's support in defeating them. The court held the practical difficulties were self-inflicted and an affront to the dignity of the court, and declined to countenance blatant disregard of its orders, particularly by a government party.
Whether the claimant met the requirements for a temporary mandatory injunction
The claimant established a prima facie case and the balance of convenience favoured the grant; interim orders issued
Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, the court found the claimant established a prima facie case that he was sent on compulsory leave by the 3rd respondent and his salary stopped unlawfully. Merits were deferred; the balance of convenience favoured the injunction, and interim orders reinstating pay and restraining interference issued.
Legal principles established
#- A party against whom court orders are directed must first obey them and then seek further relief afterwards
- A party who wilfully defies a court order does not deserve audience before the same court
- Under Article 156(6) the Attorney General shall promote, protect and uphold the rule of law and defend the public interest
- Giella v Cassman Brown test for interlocutory injunctions
Court orders
#- 1.The salary and allowances of the claimant that were frozen on 7th May 2015 be reinstated forthwith with effect from that date
- 2.The respondents are restrained from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the claimant's appointment and or employment in the public service in job group R pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 3.The claimant continues to provide service in whatever capacity he will be deployed to subject to the restraint order pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 4.The respondents' application for review dated 20th August 2015 dismissed as lacking merit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (statutory basis not expressly cited in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Abednego Reuben Okarikodi Etyang’a v Attorney General & 4 others [2016] KEELRC 1726 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1726/eng@2016-02-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.