Lucy Rimanto Molonket v Simon Peter Ole Nkeri & 9 others [2018] KEELRC 1845 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a contempt claim against Kenya Breweries, holding parties cannot read meanings into court orders that the orders never contained.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Nature and scope of the ex parte order of 11th November 2016
The order was purely a stay of the decision deploying the Petitioner to the position of Head of Special Projects; it contained no order of reinstatement and did not affect Abraham Kiprotich's acting appointment.
The court reproduced its handwritten order verbatim, noting both parties had assigned it their own meanings. It explained that at the ex parte stage it had deliberately declined to adopt the Petitioner's detailed prayers, crafting its own words to preserve the substratum of the dispute - the Petitioner's job. The court was mindful the employer might have made HR adjustments and therefore made no reinstatement order.
Whether the 1st to 6th Respondents were in contempt
No contempt was established; the Respondents withheld the deployment, reinstated the Petitioner by letter dated 21st November 2016, and went beyond what the order required.
The court accepted that contempt applications must be anchored on what the order required. The Respondents, upon receiving the order, convened a Board meeting, resolved to comply, stayed the deployment decision and reinstated the Petitioner. The Petitioner's grievances (office location, acting head, leave, tools of work) rested on a reinstatement order the court never made.
Legal principles established
#- A contempt application must be measured against what the order actually required the alleged contemnors to do; parties cannot assign their own meaning to a court order.
- Courts at the ex parte stage may craft orders in their own words rather than adopt the parties' drafted prayers, to preserve the substratum of the subject matter.
Court orders
#- 1.The Petitioner's Notice of Motion dated 7th December 2016 seeking contempt findings against the 1st to 6th Respondents is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to be in the Petition
- 3.The file to be placed before the Principal Judge of the Court for directions to expedite hearing of the substantive Petition
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Contempt of court jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court in a pending employment petition
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lucy Rimanto Molonket v Simon Peter Ole Nkeri & 9 others [2018] KEELRC 1845 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Petition (Employment and Labour Relations Court) - contempt application dated 7th December 2016 arising from order of 11th November 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1845/eng@2018-06-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.