Ngeno & 35 others v Kericho County Government & 6 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition 3 of 2016) [2024] KEELRC 2173 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the 2nd Respondent should be summoned to show cause why he should not be committed to civil jail for disobeying the court orders of 10th February 2017
- 2.Whether the Respondents have complied with the court's judgment and order of 10th February 2017 absorbing the Petitioners as Youth Polytechnic instructors
Key legal issues
#Whether the 2nd Respondent is in contempt of the orders of 10th February 2017
No finding of contempt was made; instead the Respondents were to be given an opportunity to demonstrate compliance through the show-cause process
The court reviewed the averments of both parties. The Applicants asserted that the orders absorbing the Petitioners as Youth Polytechnic instructors and awarding costs had not been implemented despite service. The Respondents, through the affidavit of Joel K. Bett, asserted full compliance, with only the payment of advocates' costs outstanding due to the advocates' failure to provide IFMIS details. Given the asserted compliance, the court held the show-cause application merited so compliance could be demonstrated.
Legal principles established
#- Where an application for show cause in contempt proceedings is met with an assertion of compliance, the proper course is to give the Respondents an opportunity to demonstrate compliance with the court's judgment and order
Court orders
#- 1.The application for show cause is merited and the Respondents are to be given an opportunity to demonstrate their compliance with the court's judgment and order of 10th February 2017
- 2.Costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act and Order 52(3) of the Supreme Court Practice Rules of England (contempt of court)
Relief refused
#Commitment of the 2nd Respondent to civil jail for six months or imposition of a fine for contempt
The court found the matter appropriate for a show-cause process, the Respondents asserting compliance with the orders; the application was not allowed at this stage
Costs
Costs in the cause
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Since this is an application for show cause and wherein the Respondents are averring that they have made good the orders of this court, the application for show cause is merited and the Respondents will be given an opportunity to demonstrate their compliance with this court’s judgment and order of 10th February 2017. Costs in the cause.
RULING DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024.
Issues in the judgment
#The ruling does not state the petition case number or the court station; the title of the parties is only inferable from the application and affidavits
The affidavit deponent states the Respondents have 'fully complied' yet concedes payment of costs remains outstanding
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ngeno & 35 others v Kericho County Government & 6 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition 3 of 2016) [2024] KEELRC 2173 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Notice of Motion dated 29th March 2017 (petition number not stated in the ruling). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2173/eng@2024-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.