Kudheiha Workers v Director Riara Group of Schools [2021] KEELRC 1823 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Riara Group of Schools and three of its officers were found guilty of contempt for ignoring Employment Court orders protecting unionised employees, and must personally appear for sentencing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Defect of relying on the unconstitutional Contempt of Court Act
The defect did not invalidate the application because the court applies Article 159(2)(d) eschewing procedural technicalities
The Respondent argued that the application, anchored on the Contempt of Court Act declared unconstitutional in the Kenya Human Rights Commission case, was defective. The court agreed the Act was unconstitutional but invoked Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution to address the contempt allegations on the merits rather than dismiss the application on that technicality. The court also found no reference to the Pandemic Response and Management Act in the application.
Whether the orders were clear and unambiguous and knowingly disobeyed
Yes; service was uncontested, the Respondent admitted knowledge of the orders, and its conduct breached them
The orders restrained victimisation of employees who had signed check-off forms and compelled deduction and remittance of union dues. Service was not contested, and the Respondent's replying affidavit admitted awareness of both orders. By writing to employees seeking confirmation of membership and failing to commence deductions by March 2020, the Respondent disobeyed unequivocal orders. Excuses of forgery allegations, lack of timelines and COVID-19 were unsupported by evidence.
Guilt of the named officers for contempt
The Respondent and the three named officers wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders and were found guilty of contempt
The court found that as at the filing of the application in May 2020 and the swearing of the replying affidavit in June 2020, the Respondent still had not complied, which was an admission of deliberate disobedience; the Respondent's request for fresh recruitment of union members implied no intention to comply. The three named officers were therefore adjudged guilty of contempt and ordered to appear personally for sentencing.
Legal principles established
#- An order of court is binding and must be obeyed unless and until discharged; a party cannot unilaterally vary or qualify a clear order
- A party requires leave of the court to deviate from clear orders; unsubstantiated excuses do not justify disobedience
- New arguments cannot be raised for the first time in submissions; submissions are not evidence
- Courts administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities, so reliance on a statute later declared unconstitutional does not necessarily defeat an application
Court orders
#- 1.A finding that the Respondent and its officers Juju Gachukia, Victoria N. Shigoli and Stephen G. Kariuki wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the court's orders and are guilty of contempt
- 2.All the cited officers to personally appear in court on 4th May 2021 for sentencing
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction to punish for contempt; Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution; Section 5 of the Judicature Act (following declaration of unconstitutionality of the Contempt of Court Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Republic v Inspector General of Police & 2 others Ex parte Ayub Gikonyo Mathenge & 2 others [2022] KEELRC 135 (KLR)[2022] KEELRC 135 (KLR)28 Apr 2022followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kudheiha Workers v Director Riara Group of Schools [2021] KEELRC 1823 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Contempt Application dated 18th May 2020 (arising from a recognition dispute cause). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1823/eng@2021-04-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.