Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 28th November 2023 (in Petition E210 of 2021 series, ELRC Nairobi)· [2024] KEELRC 274 (KLR)

Kenya Union of Clinical Officers (KUCO) v Nairobi City County Government & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E180 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 274 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
13 February 2024
1,822 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Nairobi County avoided contempt sanctions for clinical officer recruitment because it postponed the interviews, though the court stressed its orders must be obeyed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioner, a union, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 28th November 2023 seeking declarations that the County Secretary and Head of Public Service of Nairobi County, Mr Patrick Analo Akivaga, and the (Ag) Secretary & CEO of the Nairobi City County Public Service Board, Mr Nyamwaya Nyagara, together with the entire Board, were in civil contempt of the conservatory orders issued on 24th October 2023, which prohibited advertising, interviewing or recruiting clinical officers before absorbing the grievants on permanent and pensionable terms. The Applicant sought committal to civil jail for six months or fines of KShs 100,000 each, denial of audience until purging, and personally borne costs on an indemnity basis. The Respondents denied breach, contending the recruitment began on 18th August 2023 before the suit, that no staff had been recruited, and that conflicting High Court orders permitted the process. The court, per Anna Ngibuini Mwaure J, held that the order was clear and prohibited continuing the recruitment regardless of when it would end; circulating a notice of shortlisted candidates including 26 clinical officers and setting interview dates breached the order, and the proper remedy for a party aggrieved by an order was to apply for its discharge or renewal, not to disobey it. However, by further affidavit it emerged that by public notice dated 15th January 2024 the scheduled interviews of January 2024 were postponed until further notice. The court held this exonerated the contemnors, and dismissed the contempt application as overtaken by events, with each party bearing their respective costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether continued recruitment steps after service of a prohibitory order constitute contempt

Holding

Circulating a notice of shortlisted candidates including clinical officers and setting interview dates after the 24.10.2023 order breached the order, which prohibited continuing the recruitment process regardless of when it would end.

Reasoning

The court found the order unambiguous: it prohibited advertising, interviewing, recruiting or allowing new clinical officers to assume office pending determination of the application. The argument that the recruitment was already underway when the suit was filed did not assist because the order barred continuing the process. Respondents asserting conflicting High Court orders gave no case number or copy of such orders; in any event independent orders must be obeyed unless set aside. The aggrieved party's remedy was to apply to discharge or renew the order, not to disregard it.

p. 4
02

Whether contempt sanctions should still issue despite the postponement of the interviews

Holding

No, the contempt application was overtaken by events because the interviews were postponed by public notice dated 15th January 2024.

Reasoning

By a further affidavit dated 18th January 2024, the Respondents' CEO/Board Secretary informed the court that by public notice dated 15th January 2024, the scheduled interviews for 17th, 18th and 23rd January 2024 would not proceed until further notice. The court held this action exonerated the contemnors from contempt since the interviews were postponed as per the order of 27th November 2023. The application was accordingly dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Court orders must be obeyed unless and until set aside, even where the person affected believes the order to be irregular or void
  • A party aggrieved by a court order must apply for its discharge or variation rather than disobey it

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for contempt of court is dismissed as overtaken by events
  2. 2.Each party will bear their respective costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48
  • Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya)Section 1B

Cases cited (3)

  • Muthui v Kenya Rural Roads Authority (KERRA) (Petition E210 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 793 (KLR)
    [2023] KEELRC 793 (KLR)
  • MNN v JMM [2022] eKLR
    [2022] eKLR
  • Econet Wireless Kenya Limited v Minister for Information and Communication of Kenya Authority [2005] eKLR
    [2005] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original contempt jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over breach of its conservatory orders of 24th October 2023

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Clinical Officers (KUCO) v Nairobi City County Government & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E180 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 274 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Notice of Motion dated 28th November 2023 (in Petition E210 of 2021 series, ELRC Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/274/eng@2024-02-13

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