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· [2022] KEELRC 239 (KLR)

Kenya Concrete Structural Ceremic Tiles Woodply and Interior Design Workers Union v Intex Company Limited [2022] KEELRC 239 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
24 March 2022
AMAnna Ngibuini Mwaure
1,995 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court fined Intex Company's director KShs 50,000 for deliberately ignoring court orders to remit workers' union dues.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant union obtained interim orders from this Court on 6th October 2020 directing Intex Company Limited to commence deductions and remittance of trade union dues under check-off forms served in March 2019, to pay all unremitted dues from April 2019 onward from its own funds under Section 19(6) of the Employment Act, and to refrain from harassing or intimidating the Claimant's members. The orders were served on the Respondent on 8th October 2020, as confirmed by the process server's affidavits. The Respondent failed to comply, prompting an application dated 2nd February 2021 seeking that Mr. Vikas Gehlot be cited for contempt, committed to civil jail for six months, and compelled to purge the contempt. Meanwhile, the Kenya Building of construction timber and furniture employees union was enjoined as an interested party on 28th October 2021. The Respondent filed no submissions. The court, applying the principle that contempt requires deliberate and mala fide disobedience rather than accidental non-compliance, found sufficient proof that the Respondent deliberately disobeyed the orders of 6th October 2020 with no excuse and no stay in place. It held that the joinder of the interested party did not excuse the Respondent from compliance. In its final orders of 24th March 2022 the court cited Mr. Vikas Gehlot or the duly recognised Directors of Intex Company Limited for contempt, compelled them to purge the contempt, and fined the contemnor Kshs.50,000 payable within 15 days, in default three months' imprisonment. Costs of the application were awarded to the Claimant against the Respondent/Contemnor.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether contempt of court was established against the Respondent

Holding

Contempt was established; the Respondent was served with the orders of 6th October 2020 and deliberately disobeyed them with no excuse and no stay of execution in place

Reasoning

The court found the orders of 6th October 2020 were served on 8th October 2020, confirmed by sworn affidavits of the process server. There was no stay of execution. The Respondent filed no submissions and offered no explanation or attempt to mitigate. Applying the test that disobedience must be deliberate and mala fide, the court found sufficient proof of deliberate disobedience.

p. 3
02

Whether joinder of the interested party excused the Respondent's non-compliance

Holding

The enjoining of the interested party did not purge or excuse the Respondent from obeying the court orders

Reasoning

The court noted the interested party was not a party to the application of 21st September 2020 and its joinder could not suspend the Respondent's obligation to comply. The interested party's remedy was to seek to re-open the application or file its own application, not to shield the Respondent from contempt.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Court orders are valid unless set aside or reviewed on appeal and must be complied with; a party facing difficulty in compliance must return to court and explain
  • In contempt proceedings the critical question is whether disobedience of the court order was deliberate and mala fide, and not accidental
  • Court orders are not meant for cosmetic purposes but are serious decisions meant to be complied with strictly

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The court cites MR. VIKAS GEHLOT or the duly recognised Directors of the Respondent Company for contempt of court for disobeying orders of court issued on 6th October, 2020
  2. 2.The Respondent/Contemnor MR. VIKAS GEHLOT or the duly recognised Directors of INTEX CO. LIMITED be compelled to purge the contempt
  3. 3.The Contemnor/Respondent is fined Kshs.50,000/= and in default 3 months imprisonment to pay within 15 days
  4. 4.Costs of the application to be borne by the Respondent/Contemnor

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 19(6)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B
  • Legal Notice No.50 of 2014

Cases cited (4)

  • REPUBLIC VS THE KENYA SCHOOL OF LAW & OTHERS
    MCL APPLICATION NO.58 OF 2014
  • ECONET WIRELESS KENYA LIMITED VS MINISTER FOR INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION OF KENYA AND ANOTHER
    (2005) eKLR
  • TEACHERS SERVICE COMMISSION VS KENYA NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS & OTHERS
    PETITION NO.23 OF 2013
  • SAMUEL MWERU AND OTHERS VS NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION
    CASE NO.443 OF 2017
Jurisdiction invoked
Contempt jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over disobedience of its own orders, invoked in an application dated 2nd February 2021

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Concrete Structural Ceremic Tiles Woodply and Interior Design Workers Union v Intex Company Limited [2022] KEELRC 239 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/239/eng@2022-03-24

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