Mberia & 3 others v County Secretary, County Government of Meru & 2 others; Kwiriga & 4 others (Interested Parties) (Petition 1 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 2310 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court found Meru County officials in contempt for ignoring a reinstatement order and withholding salaries, warning jail time may follow.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the respondents were served with or had knowledge of the orders of 7th October 2022
Service and knowledge were established; the respondents admitted service in their replying affidavit and submissions
Contempt requires proof of personal service or knowledge. The court found the orders were served and the respondents admitted this. The order itself was clear and unambiguous, commanding the respondents not to implement the compulsory leave letters and not to allow others to act as chief administrative officers in the applicants' places.
Whether the respondents violated the orders
Violation was established by the unexplained withholding of the applicants' salaries for November 2022 to February 2023, corroborating the applicants' account that they were barred from resuming work
Although the applicants' photographs and video clips lacked certification under section 106B of the Evidence Act, the respondents never denied withholding salaries for four months and produced payment records only from March 2023. No justification was offered, and this conduct was inconsistent with full compliance with the conservatory orders reinstating the applicants.
Whether the violation was deliberate
The court found the respondents deliberately failed to allow the applicants back to their offices and withheld their salaries for four months
The County Secretary wrote the impugned letters and was the proper person to ensure compliance. Given the absence of any justification for the salary stoppage, the conduct was wilful. The power to commit to jail must be exercised as a last resort and only where the contemnor's conduct is deliberate, a threshold the court found met here.
Legal principles established
#- The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than the balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt
- Knowledge of a court order supersedes proof of personal service
- Every person against whom a court order is made has a plain and unqualified obligation to obey it until discharged
Court orders
#- 1.The respondents are cited for contempt of the court's order issued on 7th October 2022 for failing to allow the applicants back to their offices and for withholding their salary for November 2022 to February 2023
- 2.The First Respondent Mr. Rufus Miriti or his successor in title is summoned to attend virtual Court personally on 12th October 2023 at 9.00 AM to show cause why the respondents should not be punished for contempt of court
- 3.Until the contempt is purged the respondents will have no audience before the court
- 4.The applicants are awarded costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 5 of the Judicature Act (contempt of court jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mberia & 3 others v County Secretary, County Government of Meru & 2 others; Kwiriga & 4 others (Interested Parties) (Petition 1 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 2310 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Notice of Motion dated 11th April 2023 (in a petition before the ELRC Nyeri). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2310/eng@2023-09-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.