Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNotice of Motion Application dated 31/01/2019 (ELRC suit)· [2019] KEELRC 769 (KLR)

Jenipher Achieng’ Ouko & 13 others v University of Nairobi [2019] KEELRC 769 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
17 September 2019
2,442 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a contempt claim because the officials were never personally served with the court orders they allegedly breached.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimants, former employees of the University of Nairobi engaged in cleaning and grounds maintenance, moved the Employment and Labour Relations Court by Notice of Motion dated 31/01/2019 under Sections 12 and 16 of the Employment & Labour Relations Court Act and Section 5 of the Judicature Act. They sought leave to commence contempt proceedings against the Vice Chancellor, Prof. Peter Mbithi, and the Chief Personnel Officer, Peter M. Mbuthia, their committal to six months' civil jail, and reinstatement with full benefits. They relied on interim orders issued on 4/8/2017 restraining outsourcing and victimisation, which they said were extended on 16/10/2017 and to 27/11/2017 and were still in force, alleging the officers orally dismissed all claimants on 2/01/2019 in breach. The respondent filed grounds of opposition, contending the orders expired on 6/11/2017, that no order with a penal notice was served personally on the alleged contemnors, that the breach was not proved to the required standard, and that reinstatement could not be granted absent such relief in the substantive suit. Citing Isaac Karuri Nyongo v Ruiru Sports Club among other authorities, the respondent insisted on personal service and proof of wilful breach beyond reasonable doubt. Justice Hellen Wasilwa found the interim orders had not lapsed, having been extended by consent on 27/11/2017 in the presence of both counsel. However, since the claimants failed to demonstrate personal service of the orders on the two officers or any act or omission amounting to contempt, the contempt application was dismissed with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the interim orders had lapsed

Holding

The court held the orders of 4/8/2017, extended on 27/11/2017 by consent, remained in force until hearing of the claim and had not lapsed as contended by the respondent

Reasoning

The court found the orders were extended from time to time and on 27/11/2017 the parties by consent agreed to stay the interim orders pending the main claim. There was no indication they were ever varied or stayed, so the respondent's contention that they expired on 6/11/2017 was incorrect.

p. 3
02

Whether the contempt application against the two officials could succeed

Holding

The application failed because personal service and proof of the contemnors' breach were not established

Reasoning

Applying the principle in Isaac Karuri Nyongo v Ruiru Sports Club, the court found no demonstration that the Vice Chancellor and Chief Personnel Officer were personally served with the orders, nor any evidence of what each did or omitted to do in breach. Without proof of personal service and deliberate breach, the contempt application could not stand.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An alleged contemnor must be personally served with the court order alleged to have been breached, and the acts or omissions constituting contempt must be demonstrated

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for contempt against the alleged contemnors is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment & Labour Relations Court ActSections 12, 13, 16
  • Judicature ActSection 5
  • Evidence ActSections 107-110
  • Employment Act
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 10, 159(1), 162(2)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rule 6

Cases cited (8)

  • Solomon Kinoti & Another v Attorney General
    [2011] eKLR
  • Eliakim Washington Olweny v Wilson Kibor Mutai & Another
    [2013] eKLR
  • Mwangi H.C Wang’ondu v Nairobi City Commission
    Civil Appeal No. 95/1988
  • Sam Nyamweya & 3 Others v Kenya Premier League Limited & 2 others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Isaac Karuri Nyongo & another v Ruiru Sports Club
    [2005] eKLR
  • Republic v Kenyatta University Exparte Losem Naomi Chepkemoi
    [2019] eKLR
  • Kenya Data Network v Kenya Revenue Authority
    [2013] eKLR
  • Ekuam Lomongin v Julia A. Ojiambo & another
    [2018] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 12 and 16 of the Employment & Labour Relations Court Act; Section 5 of the Judicature Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jenipher Achieng’ Ouko & 13 others v University of Nairobi [2019] KEELRC 769 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Notice of Motion Application dated 31/01/2019 (ELRC suit). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/769/eng@2019-09-17

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