Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCStruck OutPetition dated 22 February 2024 (contempt Petition; arising from Kisumu Petition No. E027 of 2023)· [2024] KEELRC 819 (KLR)

Otieno & 37 others v Union of Kenya Civil Servants & 3 others; Registrar of Trade Unions (Interested Party) (Petition E008 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 819 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
17 April 2024
1,746 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

#

The court struck out a contempt case filed as a new petition, confirming contempt of court must be raised in the original case where the order was issued.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Following a judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Kisumu on 31 January 2024 in Kisumu Petition No. E027 of 2023 (Bernard Otieno & Ors v Union of Kenya Civil Servants & Ors), which found the union officials in breach of fiduciary duties for failing to make the union's books of account available for inspection, the Respondents allegedly failed to comply. The Petitioners, together with 35 unnamed persons, filed a fresh Petition on 22 February 2024 alleging contempt and seeking a declaration of contempt, an order of mandamus compelling production of specified financial documents within fourteen days, any other punitive order, and costs. The Respondents raised a preliminary objection contending lack of jurisdiction, prematurity, non-disclosure of contempt particulars, and that contempt must be pursued in the original case before the same judge. The Court held that, following the invalidation of the Contempt of Court Act, contempt is governed by section 5 of the Judicature Act, and under prevailing practice contempt applications must be made in the proceedings where the orders were issued. The Petitioners should therefore have returned to Kisumu Petition No. E027 of 2023 rather than filing a new petition; the access-to-justice argument failed since the underlying dispute had already been determined, and joinder of 35 unnamed persons was improper. The Petition was found incompetent and struck out with no order as to costs, the parties being officials or members of the same trade union.

Key legal issues

#
01

Correct procedure for initiating contempt proceedings

Holding

The Petition was incompetent because contempt should have been pursued in the original proceedings, Kisumu Petition No. E027 of 2023, not by filing a fresh petition.

Reasoning

The Court surveyed the legal framework after the High Court invalidated the Contempt of Court Act, holding that section 5 of the Judicature Act still stands. Relying on Christine Wangari Chege and Samuel N.M. Mweru, it stated the prevailing practice is that contempt is sought by application within the proceedings where the disobeyed orders were issued. Despite the constitutional command against procedural technicality, filing a new petition was procedurally wrong and the access-to-justice argument failed since the parties had already litigated the underlying dispute.

p. 5
02

Effect of invalidation of the Contempt of Court Act

Holding

Section 5 of the Judicature Act governs contempt following the Act's invalidation.

Reasoning

The Court noted the High Court invalidated the Contempt of Court Act in Kenya Human Rights Commission v Attorney General, and adopted the reasoning in Samuel N.M. Mweru that the effect is that section 5 of the Judicature Act still stands as the legal basis for contempt, including its procedure and penalties.

p. 5
03

Access to justice and fair hearing rights

Holding

The contempt petition did not implicate access to justice.

Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the parties had already accessed the Court, their grievances were heard and a determination made, so filing a new petition did not raise access-to-justice or fair-hearing concerns.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for contempt should be commenced through an application in the proceedings where the orders said to have been disobeyed were issued
  • The legal framework on contempt is founded on the Judicature Act, section 5, after the invalidation of the Contempt of Court Act
  • All parties to a suit must be properly identified by name

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Petition is struck out
  2. 2.No order as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over trade union disputes and contempt; contempt framework under section 5 of the Judicature Act following the invalidation of the Contempt of Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Otieno & 37 others v Union of Kenya Civil Servants & 3 others; Registrar of Trade Unions (Interested Party) (Petition E008 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 819 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Petition dated 22 February 2024 (contempt Petition; arising from Kisumu Petition No. E027 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/819/eng@2024-04-17

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