Kamunyu v Safaricom PLC (Employment and Labour Relations Judicial Review E066 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1963 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court dismissed a former Safaricom employee's contempt claim, ruling that the company's later disciplinary process fell outside the scope of the court's clarified orders.
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 Court issued clear, unambiguous orders binding on the Respondents
- 2.Whether the Respondents had knowledge of the orders
- 3.Whether the Respondents disobeyed the orders
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondents' conduct amounted to contempt of the orders of 12th March 2025
The court held that the orders, as clarified on 14th March 2025, were limited to the disciplinary proceedings of 18th November 2024, and the subsequent proceedings related to the BTN contract were not barred; hence no contempt was established
The court considered the history of the orders: the 12th March 2025 orders were clarified by the court on 14th March 2025 to relate only to the proceedings of 18th November 2024 concerning the Applicant's conduct on 26th October 2024 during the Safarilympics. The disciplinary proceedings that led to dismissal on 28th March 2025 arose from the BTN contract matter, which was a separate issue. The court therefore found no disobedience of the clarified orders.
Legal principles established
#- A clarification by the court limiting prior conservatory orders to specific disciplinary proceedings means those orders cannot bar other legitimate disciplinary proceedings against the same employee
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 1st April 2025 seeking contempt findings and committal orders against the named Safaricom officers was dismissed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 5 of the Judicature Act, Chapter 8 of the Laws of Kenya
Relief refused
#Finding six Safaricom executives in contempt of the orders of 12th March 2025 and committing them to civil jail for up to six months or a fine, and compelling them to purge the contempt
The court had clarified on 14th March 2025 that the orders of 12th March 2025 were limited to the disciplinary proceedings of 18th November 2024, so the subsequent disciplinary proceedings relating to the BTN contract were legitimate and not in breach of the orders
Costs
No costs order stated 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.
I therefore my finding that the action of the respondents was not in contempt of this court’s orders and therefore the application for contempt is found without merit and is therefore dismissed accordingly.
I clarified that the orders of 12/3/25 were in relation to proceedings of 18/11/24. This could therefore not be a bar to any other legitimate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant.
Issues in the judgment
#The case title is not stated on the face of the judgment extract; the case number appears only as 'ELRCJR/E066 of 2024' referenced within the notice of motion seeking contempt of orders issued therein
Costs of the application were sought in prayer 6 but the final orders do not record any costs decision
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamunyu v Safaricom PLC (Employment and Labour Relations Judicial Review E066 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1963 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRCJR/E066 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1963/eng@2025-07-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.