Bishop Paul Matumbi Muthuri v Trustees of the Methodist Church in Kenya & another [2020] KEELRC 400 (KLR)

The Court found the claimant employed under Section 2 of the Employment Act on the strength of a letter of appointment and salary vouchers, conferring jurisdiction under Article 162(2) and Section 12 of the ELRC Act. Standing Order 116(3) which purported to bar all legal proceedings against the Church was tested against Article 50(1) fair hearing rights and Article 24 limitation analysis and found unconstitutional. Nor was any internal ADR machinery pointed to; even if it existed, courts remain available after exhaustion.

Contempt being quasi-criminal, proof must be almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt. Service of the 18 December order was doubted (unnamed person at Lavington), and counsel only sought suspension of the transfer letter, leaving no eviction orders to breach. On the 24 January order, though the 2nd Respondent was personally served, the photographs and work programme did not distinguish an installation from a thanksgiving ceremony, so disobedience was not proved.

The claimant's tenure had expired on 31 December 2019 and elections had been held; his complaints about irregular elections and disciplinary process remained for trial. Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, no prima facie case was demonstrated on the irregularity of the elections or disciplinary process, so interim injunctive orders could not be sustained.

The Court held the expiry-of-employment objection was not a pure point of law suitable for a preliminary objection under the Mukisa Biscuit test, since the claimant's tenure and its expiry were among the substantive issues to be tried. The suit had also been filed on 18 December 2019 while the claimant still held office as Bishop of Nairobi.