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 on the face of the judgment (consolidated claims, Nakuru ELRC station)· [2022] KEELRC 1402 (KLR)

Nyandarua County Assembly Service Board & another v Nyandarua County Assembly & 7 others; Muchiri & another (Interested Party); Njogu & 2 others (Contemnor) (Cause E007, E010 & E011 of 2021 (Consolidated)) [2022] KEELRC 1402 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
30 June 2022
HWHellen Wasilwa
3,334 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court refused to punish officials twice for the same contempt, dismissing the application because the disobedience had already been punished and resolved.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a Notice of Motion dated 14th July 2021 in consolidated employment claims before the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru, in which the Claimants/Applicants sought contempt orders against officers of the Nyandarua County Assembly and County Service Board. They sought orders reinstating salaries and employment benefits allegedly stopped unlawfully, and summons directing seven named individuals (including Zachary Mwangi Njeru and Elizabeth Wanjiku Muthui) to show cause why they should not be punished for disobeying court orders issued on 3rd June 2021, with a proposed punishment of six months' imprisonment. The applicants relied on Katsuri Limited, Shimmers Plaza, and related authorities to establish the elements of civil contempt and that knowledge of an order suffices without personal service. The 1st Respondent supported the application, arguing contempt being quasi-criminal has no expiry time. The 2nd Respondent and 2nd to 5th Respondents opposed, contending the application was overtaken by events: the contemnors no longer held office, Mukiri Muchiri had been reinstated as acting clerk, and the contemnors had already been cited, fined Kshs 200,000 each and sentenced to 60 days in prison by Chemitei J in related petitions, with sentencing later suspended after compliance. Justice Wasilwa noted the orders of 3rd June 2021 and the allegation of interference with employment, but held that the contemnors had already been punished elsewhere for the same contempt, which had been purged, rendering the application overtaken by events. The application was dismissed with no order of costs on 30th June 2022.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether contempt proceedings survive when the contemnors have ceased holding office and have been punished elsewhere for the same contempt

Holding

The court held the application overtaken by events and dismissed it, refusing to punish again for contempt already purged

Reasoning

Although the 1st Respondent argued that contempt being quasi-criminal has no expiry time and that the acts before Chemitei J were different, the court found that the contemnors had already been punished for contempt on the same issues, had paid fines, and had complied with the court's directions. The court also noted Elizabeth Muthui was no longer acting clerk and Zachary Njeru no longer acting speaker by virtue of orders in other petitions. In the circumstances, issuing further contempt orders would serve no purpose.

p. 7
02

Jurisdiction of the ELRC to punish for contempt

Holding

The court accepted it has powers to punish for contempt under section 5(1) of the Judicature Act as a court of equal status with the High Court

Reasoning

The applicant submitted that the ELRC, being of equal status with the High Court, is empowered under section 5(1) of the Judicature Act to punish for contempt. The authorities cited confirmed that any court has inherent powers to uphold its authority and dignity and that its jurisdiction to punish violation of its orders cannot be in question. This was accepted without demur and formed the basis on which the contempt application was entertained.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Courts will not condone deliberate disobedience of their orders and must deal firmly with proved contemnors to uphold the rule of law
  • Civil contempt requires proof of four elements: clear and unambiguous order binding on the defendant, knowledge or notice of it, breach, and deliberate conduct

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 14th July 2021 seeking contempt orders is dismissed
  2. 2.No order of costs on the application
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 3B and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 9 Rules 9 & 10 and Order 50 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nyandarua County Assembly Service Board & another v Nyandarua County Assembly & 7 others; Muchiri & another (Interested Party); Njogu & 2 others (Contemnor) (Cause E007, E010 & E011 of 2021 (Consolidated)) [2022] KEELRC 1402 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated on the face of the judgment (consolidated claims, Nakuru ELRC station). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/1402/eng@2022-06-30

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