Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNairobi Industrial Cause No. 115 of 2006· [2023] KEELRC 2321 (KLR)

Kenya County Government Workers’ Union v Governor, County Government of Kiambu & 5 others (Cause 115 of 2006) [2023] KEELRC 2321 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
21 September 2023
MNMathews N. Nduma
2,202 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenya court refused to jail Kiambu County officials over unpaid employee dues because the contempt application named no specific person and relied on an unclear amount.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on a Chamber Summons application dated October 3, 2022 in Nairobi Industrial Cause No. 115 of 2006, in which former employees of the defunct Municipal Council of Thika sought the commitment of four Kiambu County officials to civil jail for failure to pay Kshs.90,897,878 in salary arrears and retirement benefits accruing under a judgment of May 13, 2009. That judgment had ordered reinstatement of 86 dismissed employees without loss of salaries and allowances, and normal retirement with full benefits for those past 55 years. The respondents, who did not appeal, admitted partial compliance: 33 workers were reinstated, 35 issued retirement letters, and a taskforce ascertained arrears at Kshs.384,674,370. They opposed the application on procedural grounds (improper reliance on Civil Procedure Rules instead of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016) and on the merits, invoking the Wambui Kiragu four-element test for civil contempt and the requirement of personal service and clarity of orders. The Court (Mathews N. Nduma, Judge) held that the arrears figure was the applicant's own computation not expressly reflected in the judgment, that no particular individual had been named as being in willful defiance, and that the partial compliance shown was inconsistent with willful disobedience. The application was found fatally defective and lacking in merit and was dismissed. The parties were encouraged to agree a payment plan, and each party was ordered to meet its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether civil contempt was established against the respondents

Holding

The application failed the test for civil contempt because no named individual was cited, particulars of deliberate defiance were absent, and the sum claimed was the applicant's own computation not expressly reflected in the judgment

Reasoning

The Court noted the respondents had undertaken to comply and had reinstated 88 employees and retired others, demonstrating partial compliance rather than willful disobedience. The arrears figure was computed by the applicant and not expressly stated in the judgment, so the order was not clear and unambiguous. The application also failed to name any individual to be punished or show proper personal service.

p. 5
02

Whether the application was procedurally defective

Holding

The Court found the application fatally defective, though it declined to determine the respondent's other preliminary issues on the improper invocation of Civil Procedure Rules

Reasoning

The respondent argued the application was incompetent for citing Order 40 and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules rather than the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016. The Court found it unnecessary to deal with these preliminary issues since the application failed on the merits of contempt.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Contempt proceedings must identify and cite the specific individuals alleged to be in willful defiance, who have been properly served and given opportunity to defend themselves; an order must be clear and unambiguous before contempt can be punished

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Chamber Summons application dated October 3, 2022 is dismissed as fatally defective and lacking in merit
  2. 2.The parties are encouraged to put in place a payment plan to the reinstated and retired officers in satisfaction of the judgment of the Court
  3. 3.Each party to meet their costs of the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 rules 1 and 2; Order 51 rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Act, 2010Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and Order 3(e)
  • Employment & Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016Rule 32(2)

Cases cited (8)

  • Prisca Jepng'etich –vs- Generation Career Readiness Social Initiative Limited
    [2021] eKLR
  • Republic -vs- Karisa Chengo & 2 Others
    [2017] eKLR
  • Wambui Kiragu (suing as Administrator of the Estate of the late Samuel Kiragu Michuki) –vs- Governor – Nairobi City County and Another
    [2018]
  • Wang'ondu -vs- Nairobi City Commission
    CA No. 95 of 1988
  • Jihan Freighters Limited -vs- Hardware & General Stores Limited
    [2015] eKLR
  • Ochino and Another -vs- Okombo and 4 Others
    [1989] KLR
  • Wachira Nderitu, Ngugi & Company Advocates -vs- The Town Clerk, City Council of Nairobi
    Miscellaneous Application No. 354 of 2012
  • Republic -vs- Principal Secretary, Ministry of defence Ex-parte George Kariuki Waithaka
    [2018] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over enforcement of its own judgment/award (ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya County Government Workers’ Union v Governor, County Government of Kiambu & 5 others (Cause 115 of 2006) [2023] KEELRC 2321 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Nairobi Industrial Cause No. 115 of 2006. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2321/eng@2023-09-21

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