Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowed· [2021] KEELRC 1080 (KLR)

Daniel Mathenge & 16 others v Youth Enterprise Development Fund [2021] KEELRC 1080 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
20 August 2021
JRJames Rika
954 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Employment and Labour Relations Court, in a ruling by James Rika J, dealt with an application by the Claimants seeking that Benson Muthendi (Acting CEO), Truphena Omung'ala (HR Manager) and Benjamin Munguti (Payroll Officer) of the Respondent be summoned to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt. The background was that the Respondent's 76th Full Board meeting of around 19th October 2020 resolved to reverse salary increments the Claimants had enjoyed for about 15 months, which had followed the 67th Full Board meeting and advice from the Salaries and Remuneration Commission. On 11th December 2020 the Court granted ex parte orders suspending implementation of that resolution. Despite undisputed service, the Respondent slashed the Claimants' basic salaries at the end of December 2020, as shown by pay slips (e.g. Jemimah Muriuki's salary dropping from Kshs. 89,748 to Kshs. 81,404). The Respondent, through its Board Chairman Dr. Victor Mwongera, argued it lacked Treasury endorsement for the increments and was operating on a deficit, and filed an application to set aside the ex parte orders. The Court found service uncontested, the order unambiguous and disobeyed, and no SRC advice supporting the slashing. It held that self-help leads to lawlessness and constitutional disorder, and that the Claimants had shown evidence warranting the officers to answer a contempt charge. The Court ordered the officers summoned, directed immediate reversion to pre-resolution salaries, and ordered payment of arrears in full before the officers appear.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondent was in contempt of the interim orders of 11th December 2020

Holding

The order was served, unambiguous, and disobeyed; the Respondent slashed the Claimants' salaries in implementation of the suspended Board resolution.

Reasoning

The Court found it beyond doubt that interim orders barred implementation of the 76th Full Board resolution. Service was uncontested and the order was in clear language. Pay slips showed salaries were reduced in December 2020. Instead of complying and seeking to justify the salary reduction at an inter partes hearing, the Respondent disregarded the orders, amounting to contempt warranting the officers being summoned.

p. 2
02

Whether the cited officers should be summoned to show cause

Holding

The Claimants established evidence that the officers should appear to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt.

Reasoning

The Acting CEO, HR Manager and Payroll Officer were the officers responsible for implementing the salary reduction. Given proof of implementation through pay slips and uncontested service of the order, the Court directed that they be summoned, and ordered reversion of salaries and payment of arrears before their appearance.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Parties must not resort to self-help but must allow the Court to resolve their disputes while observing the status quo.
  • Disregard of court orders leads to lawlessness and constitutional disorder.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Acting CEO Benson Muthendi, HR Manager Truphena Omung'ala and Payroll Officer Benjamin Munguti are summoned to appear before the Court on a date to be assigned by the Deputy Registrar, to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of Court
  2. 2.Pending their appearance, the Respondent is directed to immediately revert to payment of salaries applicable prior to the resolution of the 76th Full Board Meeting
  3. 3.Arrears of salaries occasioned through implementation of the said resolution shall forthwith be paid in full to the Claimants before the cited officers appear before the Court
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent contempt jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over disobedience of its interim orders

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Daniel Mathenge & 16 others v Youth Enterprise Development Fund [2021] KEELRC 1080 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1080/eng@2021-08-20

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