Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the excerpt (interlocutory application dated 16th March, 2021 within a cause)· [2021] KEELRC 1453 (KLR)

Jack Wangai Maina v Britam Holdings Limited [2021] KEELRC 1453 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
29 March 2021
MMM. Mbaru
2,987 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a contempt application, warning that contempt proceedings only belong in the clearest cases of actual disobedience.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, the respondent's Group Chief Operating Officer, moved the court by application dated 16th March, 2021 under section 5 of the Judicature Act, seeking that senior officials of the respondent be summoned to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of interim orders issued on 9th March, 2021, that two IT officers be summoned for cross-examination, that the Managing Director and Human Resource Director be committed to civil jail for up to six months, and that James Maitho be punished for perjury. He alleged denial of access to IT systems, the VPN, and physical premises, and that new executives had been recruited mid-VER. The respondent, through the replying affidavit of James Maitho, maintained full compliance: the claimant remained an employee, was paid his salary and benefits, had email access restored on 16th March, 2021, was never denied physical access, and the VER remained voluntary with his response period extended. The court construed the orders of 9th March, 2021 as having three core limbs - preservation of employment, payment of salary and benefits, and the VER remaining voluntary - and found all complied with. Grievances about VPN access did not amount to cessation of employment; work from home was a COVID-19 measure for all staff. Relying on Teachers Service Commission v KNUT and Johnson v Grant, the court held that contempt proceedings arise only in the clearest of cases and may not be misused to steal a match. The application was found to be an abuse of court process and dismissed with costs to the respondent. The court restated directions: the claimant's employment is preserved pending the motion of 8th March, 2021, he shall keep off the respondent's premises and virtual platforms, and the respondent may move to the next phase of its reorganisation as the VER period lapsed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the respondent breached the status quo orders of 9th March, 2021

Holding

No breach found; the orders had three core limbs - preservation of employment, payment of salary and benefits, and the VER remaining voluntary - and the court found all were complied with

Reasoning

The court construed the 9th March 2021 orders as preserving employment, salary and the voluntary VER. On the affidavits there was no cessation of employment, no stoppage of salary, and the VER remained voluntary. Grievances over VPN and IT access did not relate to the specific orders, and work from home was due to COVID-19 and applied to all staff. Citing the respondent for contempt outside the specific orders was 'rush business'.

p. 3
02

Whether the contempt application was an abuse of court process

Holding

Yes; it was dismissed with costs

Reasoning

The court held contempt proceedings protect the court's honour and dignity and cannot be misused to steal a match against the other party. Since there was no disobedience and the respondent had complied as directed, the application could only be for unlawful reasons and constituted abuse of process. The claimant was in effect using contempt to re-litigate access to IT infrastructure already addressed in the application of 8th March 2021.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Contempt proceedings should only arise in the clearest of cases so the court can attend to its ordinary business
  • Civil contempt exists to preserve the court's authority and punish disobedience; it must not be misused to gain advantage over the other party
  • Where a party has complied as directed, dragging it into contempt proceedings is an abuse of court process

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Application dated 16th March, 2021 dismissed with costs to the respondent
  2. 2.Employment of the claimant preserved pending hearing of the Notice of Motion dated 8th March, 2021 unless otherwise lawfully removed from office
  3. 3.The claimant to keep off the respondent's premises and virtual platforms
  4. 4.The VER time period having lapsed, the respondent at liberty to move to the next phase of its reorganisation
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent power to punish contempt, invoked through section 5 of the Judicature Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jack Wangai Maina v Britam Holdings Limited [2021] KEELRC 1453 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the excerpt (interlocutory application dated 16th March, 2021 within a cause). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1453/eng@2021-03-29

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