Kioko v Technical University of Kenya & another (Petition E173 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 53 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court found a union guilty of contempt for removing an official despite clear restraining orders, though no punishment was imposed yet.
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 violated the orders of the Court issued on 26th July 2024 restraining it from expelling the Petitioner as National Vice Chairperson, Branch Chairperson and member of the union
- 2.Whether the 2nd Respondent is guilty of contempt of court and liable to punishment
Key legal issues
#Whether the 26th July 2024 orders barred the 2nd Respondent from holding meetings and passing a vote of no confidence against the Petitioner
The Court held that the orders barred any action by the Respondents geared at removing the Petitioner from her positions, and the vote of no confidence and expulsion breached those orders.
The Court reviewed the ruling of 26th July 2024, which set aside earlier orders and restrained the 2nd Respondent from expelling the Petitioner as National Vice Chairperson, Branch Chairperson and member. The Court found the orders clear and unambiguous, rejecting the Respondent's narrower interpretation that only the 2023 expulsion decision was quashed. It held that any action aimed at removing the Petitioner, including the 9th August 2024 vote of no confidence, contravened the orders.
Whether the 2nd Respondent is guilty of contempt and liable to punishment
The Court found the contemnor guilty of contempt and liable to punishment unless the contempt is purged.
Having determined that the Respondent's conduct (expelling the Petitioner, holding meetings in her absence and passing a vote of no confidence) violated the clear orders of 26th July 2024, the Court concluded that this constituted contempt of court. It pronounced the contemnor guilty and liable to punishment unless the contempt is purged, though it did not impose a specific sentence in the judgment.
Legal principles established
#- Where a court order clearly and unambiguously restrains action against a party, any action geared towards defeating that order constitutes contempt of court.
- Commencement of any action geared towards removing a party from office by whatever means, in breach of a restraining order, is contempt of court.
Court orders
#- 1.A finding that the contemnor (2nd Respondent) is guilty of contempt of the Court's orders and is liable to punishment unless the contempt is purged
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 3, 3A and 63(c) and (e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 40 and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010; Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act; Articles 47, 50 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Relief refused
#Specific punitive measures including fine, six months' civil jail, arrest or detention of the Secretary-General, attachment of the Respondent's property, and reinstatement as bank signatory
The Court made no specific punitive or consequential orders; it found contempt and left the punishment conditional on purging the contempt
Costs
No costs order was made in the judgment.
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.
Having considered the orders of this court dated July 26th 2024, this court barred any action by the respondents against the applicant geared at removing her from her position as National Vice Chair amongst other positions.
The orders so granted were clear and unambiguous and the applicant cannot purport to indicate and interpret them as they so wish.
Commencing any action geared towards removing the applicant from ofice by whichever means was in my view against clear orders of the court and in contempt of this court.
I find the contemnour guilty of contempt of this court's orders and is therefore liable to punishment unless the contempt is purged. These are the orders of this court.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the ruling of 26th July 2024 as delivered by 'Hon. Judge Mwaure', suggesting the ruling was issued by a different judge than the author of this judgment.
The deponent of the Applicant's affidavit is named 'Custine Wanzakioko' and is identified as the National Vice Chairperson herself, while the applicant is also described in the same terms; the identity of applicant and deponent is not clearly distinguished.
The judgment finds the contemnor guilty but makes no specific punitive order, fine, sentence or reinstatement, leaving punishment conditional; the disposition is unusually terse.
The judgment describes the deponent as expelled by the 2023 Annual Delegates Conference in one place but the Respondent refers to the conference date as 17th November 2023 while the orders of 26th July 2024 relate to that decision; the Applicant's alleged expulsion of 9th August 2024 is described both as a vote of no confidence and as revocation of membership, without reconciliation.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kioko v Technical University of Kenya & another (Petition E173 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 53 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 9th September 2024 (Notice of Motion application; constitutional petition proceedings). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/53/eng@2025-01-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.