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 AllowedNot stated in the judgment as provided (Petition; Application dated 27/06/2019)· [2020] KEELRC 1827 (KLR)

Ernest Moturi Ogwora v National Cereals & Produce Board & 2 others [2020] KEELRC 1827 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
21 January 2020
HWHellen Wasilwa
1,301 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court refused to punish the NCPB for a contested hire because the stop order arrived too late, but ordered the Board to hand over documents.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling on the Petitioner's Notice of Motion dated 27/06/2019 in an employment petition against the National Cereals and Produce Board. The Petitioner, apparently a senior employee of the Board, sought protective and injunctive orders: protection from retaliatory actions following his Petition, a permanent bar on detrimental actions by the Respondent's Board, an order compelling disclosure of documents (including his performance evaluation records from 2008), and a restraint on recruitment flowing from the advertisement of 19/06/2018. He alleged the Board acted contemptuously by failing to supply records, proceeding with recruitment of the General Manager, Marketing and Operations despite an order of 20/12/2018, and failing to attend court on 14/03/2019. The Respondent opposed, arguing the application was frivolous, the orders were served after Mr. John Mbaya Matiri had already been appointed by letter dated 20/12/2018, the documents sought were confidential, and the court should not interfere in management decisions. Both sides filed written and supplementary submissions, each citing numerous authorities. The Court found that the orders stopping recruitment were made on 21/12/2018 but served only on 15/01/2019, after Mr. Matiri's appointment, and were therefore overtaken by events; no contempt arose. The injunction and protective relief, being tied to that contempt complaint, did not issue. However, the Court allowed the prayer for access to documents sought by the Petitioner to enable him properly prosecute the Petition. Costs were ordered to be in the Petition. The application was thus partially allowed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Contempt of the order of 20/12/2018 stopping recruitment

Holding

No contempt established; the appointment of Mr. Matiri preceded service of the order, so the orders were overtaken by events

Reasoning

The Court noted the Petitioner had sought to stop the appointment of John Mbaya Matiri. The Respondent showed Matiri was appointed by letter dated 20/12/2018, while the orders stopping recruitment were made on 21/12/2018 and served only on 15/01/2019. Since the appointment predated service, the orders were overtaken by events and contempt did not arise.

p. 3
02

Access to documents requested by the Petitioner

Holding

Granted; the Respondent to avail the documents so the Petitioner can explain his case

Reasoning

The Petitioner sought documents, including records on his performance evaluation, to prosecute the Petition. The Court found this would allow the Applicant an opportunity to explicitly explain his case and allowed the prayer as sought, without engaging the Respondent's confidentiality objections in detail.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Contempt of court cannot arise where an order restraining recruitment was served only after the appointment had already been made, rendering the orders overtaken by events
  • A party may be allowed access to documents sought to enable it properly prosecute its Petition

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Petitioner is allowed access to the documents sought to enable him prosecute the Petition properly, 'as prayed'
  2. 2.Costs of the application to be in the Petition

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 35

Cases cited (12)

  • Giella vs. Cassman Brown and Company Limited
    [1973] EA 358
  • Kipkurui arap Koech vs. Alice Wambui Magandu & 3 Others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Olympic Sport House Limited vs. School Equipment Centre Limited
    HCCC 190 of 2012
  • Magdalene Kiboi & 17 Others vs. Engen Kenya Limited
    [2019] eKLR
  • Mohamed & Another vs. Haidara
    [1972] EA
  • Mpaka Road Development Limited vs. Kana
    [2004] EA 161 (CCK)
  • Dickson Kabiru Muburu vs. Teachers Service Commission & Another
    [2017] eKLR
  • Theresa Shitakha vs. Mary Mwamodo & 4 Others
    [1986] eKLR
  • Vogue Hair & Beauty Studios Limited vs. Deposit Protection Fund Board (As Liquidator of Prudential Building Society Limited) & 2 Others
    [2017] eKLR
  • Joseph Munagi Keriko vs. Council of Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture & Technology & 3 Others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Simon Rotich Ruto vs. Judicial Service Commission & Another
    [2019] eKLR
  • Norton vs. Shelby County
    [1886]
Jurisdiction invoked
Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction (the Petition pending before the Court); application under the Court's incidental powers

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ernest Moturi Ogwora v National Cereals & Produce Board & 2 others [2020] KEELRC 1827 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment as provided (Petition; Application dated 27/06/2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1827/eng@2020-01-21

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