Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers v Jubilee Merchants Limited (Cause E072 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 836 (KLR)
The bottom line
#An Eldoret court found a company director personally guilty of contempt for victimising unionised workers after he failed to prove his sackings were legitimate.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent and its Director were in contempt of the orders of 8th September, 2024 restraining intimidation, coercion and victimisation of union members
Mr. Peter Kipsigei Sang was guilty of contempt because the alleged contemnor produced no documentary evidence of desertion, theft, disciplinary process, resignation or expiry of termly contracts, and the actions against the named employees followed service of the check-off forms and the court order.
The court accepted that the order's terms were clear and that the alleged contemnor had knowledge and service; the only live questions were breach and wilfulness. Mr. Sang asserted in his replying affidavit that the affected employees left on contract expiry, deserted, resigned, or were under discipline, but no evidence of these documented events was adduced. The actions occurred after the Respondent received check-off forms and after service of the order, and no proof established that the terminations of Mutai, Kiptoo and Kiplimo Tum were legitimate employer actions rather than victimisation for union membership.
Burden and standard of proof in contempt proceedings
The applicant must prove clear and unambiguous terms of the order, knowledge or notice, breach, and wilful and deliberate conduct; the alleged contemnor then bears the evidential burden of justifying the actions taken.
Applying the four-part test from Samuel M. N. Maweu & others v National Land Commission (2020) eKLR, the court found clarity and notice were not in issue, isolating breach and wilfulness. Because a desertion of duty, theft, disciplinary process or resignation is a documented event, the absence of such documentation meant the Respondent's denials were unproven, and the Claimant's account that terminations followed service of the order stood unrebutted.
Legal principles established
#- Elements a applicant must prove to establish contempt of court
- Obligation to obey court orders
Court orders
#- 1.Finding that Mr. Peter Kipsigei Sang is guilty of contempt of the court's orders dated 8th September, 2024
- 2.Direction that Mr. Peter Kipsigei Sang appear in court on a date to be given at the time of delivery of the ruling for sentencing
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court, Eldoret, in Cause No. E072 of 2024; application filed under certificate of urgency and the High Court (Organization and Administration) (General) Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers v Jubilee Merchants Limited (Cause E072 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 836 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No. E072 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/836/eng@2025-03-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.