Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedPetition No 569 of 2019· [2019] KEELRC 761 (KLR)

Wilson Sosion v Wycliffe Etole Omucheyi & 40 others [2019] KEELRC 761 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
24 September 2019
HWHellen Wasilwa
3,921 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~16 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's employment court found KNUT's chairman and the Registrar of Trade Unions guilty of defying court orders, so those orders remain in force.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court by Hellen Wasilwa J in an interlocutory contest within a claim by Hon. Wilson Sosion, Secretary General of the Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT), against the union's National Chairman Wycliffe Etole Omucheyi and other NEC members, with the Registrar of Trade Unions as Interested Party. The court consolidated the matter with Cause No. 579 of 2019. Four applications were before the court: Sosion's application of 28 August 2019 (which had already yielded ex-parte orders from Ongaya J staying his suspension and maintaining the status quo of the KNUT register of officials and bank accounts); KNUT and Hesbon Otieno Agola's application of 2 September 2019 seeking to compel Sosion to surrender office and restraining him from acting for KNUT following his suspension and alleged expulsion at a NEC meeting of 29 August 2019; the Respondents' application of 4 September 2019 to set aside the 2 September 2019 ex-parte orders on grounds of material non-disclosure; and Sosion's application of 9 September 2019 citing the Respondents and the Interested Party for contempt of the orders of 28 August and 2 September 2019 and seeking committal to civil jail. Framing two issues - contempt of the 28/8/2019 orders and whether the 2/9/2019 orders could be set aside - the court found on the evidence of service that the 1st Respondent and the Registrar of Trade Unions were guilty of contempt, but dismissed the contempt claim against the other Respondents for want of service, substituted service having been effected only on 30 August 2019, after the meeting. The application to set aside the 2/9/2019 orders was refused; they remain in force until the contempt is purged or cause is shown against punishment. Costs were in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondents acted in contempt of the orders of 28/8/2019

Holding

Only the 1st Respondent and the Registrar of Trade Unions were found in contempt; the rest escaped for want of service.

Reasoning

The court examined the evidence of service. There was a Return of Service evidencing service on the 1st Respondent, and the Registrar of Trade Unions did not controvert the claim she was served on 29/8/2019 at 9 am. The 1st Respondent nonetheless presided over the NEC meeting, and the Registrar effected changes despite the order. Substituted service on the other NEC members occurred on 30/8/2019, after the meeting, so no contempt could be found against them.

p. 7
02

Whether the orders of 2/9/2019 should be set aside for material non-disclosure

Holding

The application to set aside was refused because the contemnors' contempt stood in the way.

Reasoning

The Respondents argued the 2/9/2019 ex-parte orders were obtained through non-disclosure and misrepresentation of material facts, including delayed service and failure to amend the claim to include the Interested Party. The court declined to weigh non-disclosure against the finding of contempt, holding the orders would remain in force until the contempt was purged or cause shown against punishment.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • A party who is proved to have had notice of a court order and to have acted in defiance of it is guilty of contempt; contempt forecloses setting aside of related orders until purged or until cause is shown against punishment.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.1st Respondent (Wycliffe Etole Omucheyi) and the Interested Party (Registrar of Trade Unions) found guilty of contempt of the Court's orders of 28/8/2019
  2. 2.Application to cite the other Respondents for contempt dismissed for want of service
  3. 3.Orders of 2/9/2019 not set aside; they remain in force until the contempt is purged or the Respondents show cause why they should not be punished for contempt
  4. 4.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court RulesRule 16(1)-(4)
  • High Court (Practice & Procedure) RulesRule 3(2) of Part I
  • Judicature Act, Cap 8 of the Laws of KenyaSection 10
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Rule 16(1)-(4) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Rules invoked in the applications)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wilson Sosion v Wycliffe Etole Omucheyi & 40 others [2019] KEELRC 761 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Petition No 569 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/761/eng@2019-09-24

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.