Koiyet v County Public Service Board Uasin Gishu & another (Petition E017 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1287 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court found Uasin Gishu County officials guilty of disobeying employment court orders, but rejected the eviction claim for lack of proof.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Elements of civil contempt
The Applicant proved the terms of the order, the Respondents' knowledge, breach and deliberateness in respect of the withdrawal of the Applicant's accounting officer rights
The court adopted the Mweru four-element test requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt of clear terms, knowledge, breach and deliberateness. The Respondents were served and negotiated settlement, so knowledge was established; Rogony admitted writing the letter revoking the Applicant's accounting officer rights, which the court found to be interference with his employment contrary to the restraining order.
Variance between the prayers sought and the order extracted
The reference to 'City Manager' in the order, though the Applicant was Municipal Manager, is not a defence; Section 28 of the Urban Areas and Cities Act uses the two terms interchangeably and the Respondents knew the City position was unfilled
The Respondents argued contempt was impossible because the Applicant never occupied the office of City Manager. The court held that at the time the orders issued the City Manager position was unfilled, the Respondents knew this, and could not have been confused by the orders; the terms of the order were clear and unambiguous.
Whether the forcible removal of the Applicant from office amounted to contempt
Not proved - the Applicant did not establish that the alleged contemnors carried out or sent the persons who evicted him
On the second alleged act of contempt, the court found that although the Respondents did not deny the Applicant was attacked and forced out of office, they denied responsibility, and the Applicant failed to prove the attackers were the contemnors or acting at their behest.
Legal principles established
#- To succeed in civil contempt proceedings, the applicant must prove the terms of the order, the respondent's knowledge of those terms, and failure to comply; the four elements must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
- Knowledge of the existence of court orders, rather than strict personal service, suffices for contempt proceedings.
Court orders
#- 1.A finding that the Respondents, through the actions of Micah Kipkosgei Rogony, CECM-Finance and Economic Planning, are guilty of disobeying the court orders issued on 26th November 2024
- 2.A finding that the Applicant did not prove the Respondents were responsible for his eviction or departure from office on 18th February 2025
- 3.The court to give a date for sentencing at the time of delivery of the ruling
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent powers of the Employment and Labour Relations Court to enforce its orders through contempt proceedings
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Koiyet v County Public Service Board Uasin Gishu & another (Petition E017 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1287 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Application dated 27th February 2025 (arising from Petition regarding recruitment of City Manager, Eldoret). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1287/eng@2025-05-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.