Geofrey Lok Papa v Registrar of Trade Unions & 9 others [2019] KEELRC 595 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court found a union general secretary in contempt for ignoring orders, confirming that knowing about a court order counts even without personal service.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether contempt lies against a person not named as a party in the suit
Mr Murage, as holder of the office of the 2nd respondent and having filed a Replying Affidavit and enjoyed legal representation in the petition, was properly before the court and cited for contempt
The 2nd respondent is an office held by Mr Murage under the union constitution, and the Labour Relations Act defines the general secretary as the authorised officer of a trade union. He opposed the petition as General Secretary, was present when judgment was delivered, and cannot hold the office only for convenience. His awareness of the orders is confirmed by the Notice of Appeal and his participation in the proceedings.
Whether absence of a penal notice on the order defeats contempt proceedings
Knowledge of the order renders personal service and penal notice unnecessary
Relying on Teachers Service Commission v KNUT, Kenya Tea Growers Association v Atwoli and Basil Criticos v AG, the court held that where a party clearly acts showing knowledge of a court order, the strict requirement of personal service is dispensed with. Mr Murage filed a Notice of Appeal and applied to the Court of Appeal, confirming his awareness of the judgment and orders.
What sanction follows wilful disobedience of court orders
Wilful disobedience must be punished, but the court deferred sanction to secure compliance with the underlying judgment
The court found that immediate removal of Mr Murage from office would derail the judgment orders directing him to take over branch affairs and hold fresh elections. It therefore kept him in office, extended time to comply by 14 days, and required a personal appearance to report on compliance, failing which a sanction would issue.
Legal principles established
#- Knowledge of a court order supersedes the strict requirement of personal service for contempt
- An office holder who participated in proceedings as the office of the respondent cannot disclaim being a party for convenience
Court orders
#- 1.The court finds Mr Francis Murage in contempt of court vide orders issued on 14th February, 2019
- 2.Before sanction is issued, time is extended by fourteen days for compliance as directed on 14th February 2019
- 3.The 2nd respondent and office holder, Mr Francis Murage, shall personally return to court for his report on compliance on 7th October 2019
- 4.The 2nd respondent shall meet the costs of the application due to the petitioner
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 50 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 5(1) of the Judicature Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Geofrey Lok Papa v Registrar of Trade Unions & 9 others [2019] KEELRC 595 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment (petition with Notice of Motion dated 9th July 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/595/eng@2019-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.