Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment text provided· [2020] KEELRC 856 (KLR)

Moriasi Arabu Josiah v Youth Enterprise Development Fund Board & another [2020] KEELRC 856 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
25 June 2020
3,906 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 the Youth Enterprise Development Fund Board in contempt for ignoring court orders protecting a former CEO's job, though no punishment was imposed yet.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Wasilwa J, 25 June 2020) determined two interlocutory matters: the Petitioner's contempt application arising from alleged disobedience of the Court's orders of 30/4/2020 and 4/5/2020, and the Respondents' Notice of Preliminary Objection. The Petitioner, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Youth Enterprise Development Fund, alleged that despite service of orders staying the decision to dismiss/terminate him, the Respondents locked his office, confiscated his keys, and retrieved his official vehicle. The Respondents denied contempt, contending the fixed-term contract had lapsed by effluxion of time on 30/4/2020, that the order was incapable of reviving a lapsed contract, and that the Board never dismissed him but merely resolved not to renew his contract. They also objected that the Court lacked jurisdiction and that the applications were defective for citing repealed provisions. The Court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that its jurisdiction over employer-employee disputes begins during recruitment and persists after severance, and that invocation of repealed rules was a mere technicality to be overlooked under Article 159(2)(d), following Crown Paints and Martha Wangari Karua. On contempt, the Court held the 4/5/2020 order maintained the status quo as at 30/4/2020, before the contract lapsed, and that impossibility of enforcement is no defence to contempt; the Respondents' casual treatment of the order and denial of access rendered them liable to punishment. The preliminary objection was dismissed, a finding of contempt was made, and costs were awarded in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the ELRC over the dispute

Holding

The preliminary objection on jurisdiction failed; the Court has jurisdiction over employer-employee matters even after the relationship ends

Reasoning

The Respondents argued no employer-employee relationship existed since the fixed-term contract lapsed on 30/4/2020. The Court held its jurisdiction begins during recruitment and persists after severance, so the objection was not justifiable and was dismissed.

p. 5
02

Defectiveness of application under repealed rules

Holding

Invocation of repealed section 16(3) of the Industrial Court Rules 2012 was a mere technicality overlooked under Article 159(2)(d)

Reasoning

The Respondents argued the application was anchored on repealed rules and could not issue. Following its own decision in Crown Paints and the Court of Appeal in Martha Wangari Karua, the Court held procedural technicality must yield to substantive justice and dismissed the objection.

p. 5
03

Contempt of court

Holding

The Respondents were in contempt because they treated the order of 4/5/2020 casually and denied the Petitioner access to his office

Reasoning

The Court found the 4/5/2020 order maintained the status quo as at 30/4/2020 when the contract had not lapsed, effectively forestalling its lapse. The Respondents admitted knowledge of the order but pleaded incapability of implementation, which is no defence; they denied the Petitioner access to his office and were held liable to punishment.

p. 5
04

Effect of the interim order of 4/5/2020

Holding

The order stayed the decision not to renew the contract and maintained the status quo before the contract lapsed

Reasoning

The Respondents contended the contract had lapsed by operation of law before the order issued, making compliance impossible. The Court held that on 30/4/2020 the contract had not lapsed and the order forestalled its lapse, so the order was capable of being obeyed.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A party cannot plead incapability of enforcement as a defence to contempt; court orders must be obeyed until set aside or appealed
  • The ELRC's jurisdiction over employer-employee disputes begins even during recruitment and continues after the relationship is severed
  • Citing a wrong or repealed procedural provision is a mere technicality to be overlooked in favour of substantive justice under Article 159(2)(d)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 21/5/2020 is dismissed
  2. 2.A finding that the Respondents treated the Court's order casually and are liable to being punished for contempt
  3. 3.Costs in the cause
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, Section 2 (jurisdiction over employer-employee disputes)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Moriasi Arabu Josiah v Youth Enterprise Development Fund Board & another [2020] KEELRC 856 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/856/eng@2020-06-25

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