Central Board of The African Independent Pentecostal Church of Africa v Amos Mathenge Kabuthu & 4 others [2018] KEELRC 2409 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A private settlement cannot override a live court order in Kenya — defying a subsisting injunction is contempt, even if parties have reconciled.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Knowledge of the Court order
The Respondents admitted knowledge of the order of 7th March 2017 injuncting the 2nd Respondent from performing functions of the Archbishop.
The Respondents' own affidavits and submissions acknowledged the contents of the injunction, demonstrating awareness. Knowledge being admitted, the foundation for a contempt charge was established without further proof of service.
Validity of the 3rd April 2017 Agreement and Reconciliation Accord as a defence to contempt
The accord could not override the subsisting Court order because it was never brought to the Court's attention or adopted as a Court order.
The Court noted the accord was signed on 14th March 2017 while the orders of 7th March 2017 remained in force and were repeatedly extended. The Applicant was not party to the accord, the claim was never withdrawn as contemplated, and the Court had never reviewed its own orders. An out-of-court agreement therefore could not neutralise the injunction.
Whether the 2nd Respondent committed contempt
The acts of the 2nd Respondent between 9th and 16th April 2017 were in blatant violation of the orders of 7th March 2017 and were punishable.
The complained-of acts — presiding over Holy Oil Ceremonies, Palm Sunday and Easter functions and writing letters as Archbishop — occurred between 9th and 16th April 2017, when the injunction was valid and had been extended several times, including on 27th April 2017. The defence of the accord having failed, the acts constituted contempt.
Legal principles established
#- A private agreement between parties made outside the Court's direction and not brought to the Court's attention cannot vitiate a subsisting Court order unless adopted as a Court order.
- Courts punish contempt not because a judge is personally offended but to protect the integrity of the Court and the rule of law.
Court orders
#- 1.The 2nd Respondent, Fredrick Wang'ombe, is found guilty of disobeying the Court orders and is liable to be punished for contempt
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act Cap 8, Section 12(3) of the Industrial Court Act, Article 162(2) and Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Central Board of The African Independent Pentecostal Church of Africa v Amos Mathenge Kabuthu & 4 others [2018] KEELRC 2409 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Nairobi Employment and Labour Relations Cause (contempt application dated 26th April 2017, arising from Cause No. 1220 of 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/2409/eng@2018-02-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.