Kenya Chemical Workers Union v Kenya Flexgrovure Limited (Cause 127 of 2016) [2024] KEELRC 1897 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a union's contempt case against company directors because no formal court order was extracted or served on them.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the respondent and its named directors were in contempt of the orders of 18th May 2023
No contempt established; the essential elements of contempt, including a valid formal order served or known to the alleged contemnors, were not proved
The court confirmed the ruling of 18th May 2023 was delivered in the presence of the respondent's counsel, but found no formal order was ever extracted or exhibited, and no service of the ruling upon the directors personally. Knowledge of counsel does not substitute for a formal order in quasi-criminal contempt proceedings, and it would be unfair to assume the directors knew of the ruling. The conciliation invitation was also not proved to have been served.
Whether the named directors could be held liable for the company's alleged contempt without lifting the corporate veil
They could not; the application was directed at the directors while the corporate veil remained intact
The company is a separate juridical person (Salomon v Salomon) and acts through human agents, but liability of directors requires lifting the veil, which was not sought or achieved. A company can itself be found in contempt, but since it cannot be jailed, sanctions would be fines, denial or suspension of licences and similar regulatory measures.
Whether the claimant acts with instructions of the grievant employees
The court noted there was no evidence from the claimant that any grievant remained a union member or wished to pursue the claim; those weighty issues needed ventilation at the hearing of the main cause
The respondent deposed that the grievants were declared redundant, paid terminal dues, and withdrew union membership. The claimant offered no contrary evidence such as affidavits from the grievants, leaving a question mark over its mandate, which the court flagged for the hearing of the main cause.
Legal principles established
#- A formal order extracted from a ruling is the correct expression of the ruling and must be served on a party before contempt can be founded on its breach
- All court orders, whether issued suo motto, ex-parte or inter-partes, carry equal force and must be obeyed
- Directors of a limited liability company cannot be pursued for contempt of the company's obligations unless the corporate veil is lifted; a company, being juridical, may itself be found in contempt and sanctioned by fines or regulatory measures
Court orders
#- 1.The claimant's notice of motion dated 3rd July 2023 is denied and dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs of the application
- 3.The parties shall be allocated a hearing date of the main cause on priority basis
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 159 & 162(2)(a) of the Constitution; Section 5 of the Judicature Act; Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Chemical Workers Union v Kenya Flexgrovure Limited (Cause 127 of 2016) [2024] KEELRC 1897 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Nakuru ELRC Cause No. 127 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1897/eng@2024-07-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.