Nicky Njuguna & 3 others v Registrar of Trade Unions & 2 others [2017] KEELRC 1964 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court refused to jail the Registrar of Trade Unions for contempt because the original court orders never clearly stated who had to comply.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondents could be cited for contempt of the declaratory orders of 14th June, 2013
The court declined to find contempt, holding that the order directed the state generally to amend statutory provisions but did not specify which organ of state was responsible, and referred the file to the judge who issued the original orders
The orders of 14th June, 2013 were declaratory, with a four-month stay for the state to amend the statutory provisions. The court held the order was directed at the state generally but lacked clarity on which organ of state bore responsibility for enforcement. Since contempt requires a clear order directed at a specific person, and the present judge was not the one who made the original orders, it was appropriate to place the file before Onesmus Makau, J for directions rather than determine contempt.
Whether contempt proceedings could proceed while an appeal against the underlying judgment is pending
The court noted the matter had proceeded to the Court of Appeal but the parties had not disclosed the nature of the pending matters; this did not bar the application as no stay of execution had been shown, but the file was nonetheless referred for directions
The Appellants submitted there was an appeal pending challenging the judgment but no stay of execution. The court held that compliance with orders is required before challenge, but noted that the parties had not disclosed the nature of the matters pending before the Court of Appeal. It stopped short of ruling on the contempt and instead referred the file to the Presiding Judge for transmission to Onesmus Makau, J, who made the original orders.
Legal principles established
#- Where an order of the court is issued, compliance is required before a party can challenge its contents or appeal against it, as contempt undermines the rule of law
- As a general rule a contemnor has no right of audience in any court of law unless punished or the contempt is purged, though courts may depart from the rule in unique circumstances
Court orders
#- 1.The file placed before the Presiding Judge, Employment and Labour Relations Court, on 12th April, 2017 for directions on transmission of the file to Onesmus Makau, J for his consideration of the matter(s) pending
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent contempt jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over disobedience of its own orders of 14th June, 2013; no specific constitutional or statutory provision invoked for jurisdiction
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nicky Njuguna & 3 others v Registrar of Trade Unions & 2 others [2017] KEELRC 1964 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in judgment (contempt application dated 23rd September, 2016; related to ruling and orders of 14th June, 2013). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2017/1964/eng@2017-02-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.