Republic v Inspector General of Police & 2 others Ex parte Ayub Gikonyo Mathenge & 2 others [2022] KEELRC 135 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court found police authorities in willful defiance of a pay status quo order, cutting them off from court hearings until they comply.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the respondents were in contempt of the interim orders of 15th December, 2021
The 2nd respondent was found in open, blatant and willful defiance by failing to withdraw the letter reducing the applicants' grade and remuneration.
The Court had on 15th December, 2021 directed maintenance of the status quo on the applicants' remuneration, restoring Job Group J. The respondents, represented by counsel, submitted they would not obey the order, claiming it was incapable of implementation, without seeking stay on appeal or setting it aside. The Court held that absent a stay, the order bound them and their declared intention not to comply constituted willful defiance.
What sanction flows from the contempt
The Court barred the respondents from further audience on the merits until compliance and summoned the 2nd respondent's Chairperson to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt.
The Court declined to engage in a contest with the executive but insisted on deference to its orders, holding there was no useful purpose in granting audience to a party prepared to obey orders only when favourable. It therefore denied further audience pending compliance and fixed the suit to proceed exparte on the merits if the orders were not complied with.
Whether the present case was distinguishable from the Court of Appeal decision in Attorney General v Evans Muriuki Muthuuri
The Court distinguished it because the applicants here had been employed and remunerated in Job Group J since 2013, unlike the police officers in that case seeking promotion from Job Group F to J.
The Court of Appeal had granted stay of remuneration orders to the Police Service in a case where officers sought upward regrading. Here the applicants were already graduate officers in Job Group J and had suffered a reduction. The factual basis for interim relief was therefore different and Giella –vs- Cassman Brown requirements were satisfied.
Legal principles established
#- A party aggrieved by a court order must appeal or seek to set it aside; until then it must be obeyed.
- Court orders are peremptory and must be complied with; defiance is not an option.
Court orders
#- 1.The Court will not grant any further audience to the respondents on the merits of this case until they comply with the orders issued on 15th December, 2021
- 2.In the event of non-compliance, the suit shall proceed exparte on 14th June, 2022 on the merits
- 3.The Chairperson of the 2nd Respondent, Eliud N. Kinuthia, is summoned to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt and punished for disobeying the order of 15th December, 2021
- 4.Costs to follow the event
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Court's power to enforce and punish contempt of its own orders issued in pending judicial review proceedings
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Inspector General of Police & 2 others Ex parte Ayub Gikonyo Mathenge & 2 others [2022] KEELRC 135 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Judicial Review Application (Exparte Applicants' Notice of Motion dated 7th February, 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/135/eng@2022-04-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.