Maina v Kenyatta University (Petition 133 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 817 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court dismissed a contempt application against Kenyatta University, confirming contempt requires proof stronger than ordinary civil cases and that the university had already complied.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Standard and burden of proof in contempt applications
The applicant bears an intermediate burden of proof, higher than balance of probabilities but below beyond reasonable doubt, which she failed to discharge
Contempt applications are criminal in nature and attract penal consequences such as fines and incarceration, so the applicant is strictly bound to discharge the intermediate standard. The Court found the respondent had complied with the decree by offering the applicant permanent and pensionable employment at an appropriate level and paying costs, so the applicant failed to prove wilful disobedience.
Whether the respondent complied with the decree of 7th May, 2020
The Court found the respondent had complied by issuing the applicant a job at an appropriate level on permanent and pensionable basis
The respondent issued a letter of offer on 9th January, 2023 on permanent and pensionable terms, albeit the applicant disputed the grade and details. Weighing the parties' depositions and submissions, the Court was satisfied of compliance and found the applicant's grievances mostly res judicata given the substantive judgment and the Court of Appeal outcome in her favour.
Res judicata of the applicant's complaints
Most matters raised by the applicant are res judicata, the substantive suit having been determined in her favour and the appeal largely determined in her favour
The Court held that the substantive dispute over the employment contract had been fully determined in the petitioner's favour by Wasilwa J. and largely upheld by the Court of Appeal. The applicant ought to take up her new responsibilities and end the perennial disputes with her employer rather than file successive applications.
Legal principles established
#- The burden of proof in a contempt application is an intermediate standard, higher than the balance of probabilities but not beyond reasonable doubt
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 21st November, 2022 is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
- 3.Warning that costs will be ordered against the applicant should she persist in further unnecessary applications against the respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court; enforcement of decree of Wasilwa J. dated 7th May, 2020 following dismissal of appeal in Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 261 of 2020
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maina v Kenyatta University (Petition 133 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 817 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 21st November, 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/817/eng@2023-03-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.