Republic v Chief Magistrates Court Nakuru & another; Elemech Engineering Company Limited & another (Interested Parties); Njarama (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review E013 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1984 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled a magistrate's court cannot issue orders that override those of the ELRC, but contempt was not proved.
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 orders issued by Hon. R. Kefa on 31st January 2025 in Nakuru MC ELRC E073 of 2022 should be declared irregular and set aside or lifted
- 2.Whether the Interested Parties are in contempt of the court's orders issued on 17th December 2024 and should be punished accordingly
Key legal issues
#Whether a subordinate court has jurisdiction to issue orders where a superior court has stayed proceedings
Once the superior court stayed proceedings, the subordinate court lacked jurisdiction to issue further orders; the orders of 31st January 2025 were set aside as they contradicted the ELRC order
The court held that under Article 162(2) the ELRC is a superior court of equal status to the High Court. A magistrate's court therefore could not lawfully issue stay or restraining orders that had the effect of overriding the ELRC's orders of 17th December 2024. The court relied on Kenya Hotel Properties Ltd v AG on judicial hierarchy, and found the Interested Parties had engaged in forum shopping after their stay applications were rejected by the High Court.
Whether the Interested Parties were guilty of contempt of the orders of 17th December 2024
Contempt was not proved; no punishment was meted on the Interested Parties
The court accepted the principle that contempt requires proof that an order was clear, known to the alleged contemnor, breached and that the breach was deliberate or wilful (Mutitika v Baharini Farm; Katsuri Limited). On the facts the court was not satisfied that contempt by the Interested Parties was established, and declined to punish them, even while setting aside the subordinate court orders.
Whether the Interested Parties' conduct amounted to forum shopping
The court found clear forum shopping - the Interested Parties, having failed to meet conditions for stay and having their applications rejected by the High Court, rushed to the subordinate court for the same relief dressed differently
The court traced the litigation history: conditional stay granted by Rika J on 18th October 2024, conditions not met, several applications rejected, then suits filed in the Chief Magistrate's Court seeking in substance the same stay/restraining orders. The court held it was improper to seek from the subordinate court orders refused by the High Court, even if couched as restraining orders rather than stay of execution.
Legal principles established
#- A subordinate court cannot issue orders that override or contradict orders of a superior court such as the ELRC, which enjoys equal status to the High Court under Article 162(2) of the Constitution
- Obtaining from a subordinate court orders equivalent to those refused by a superior court amounts to forum shopping and violates judicial hierarchy
Court orders
#- 1.Prayer No. 3 of the Notice of Motion dated 5th February 2025 granted - the orders issued by Hon. R. Kefa on 31st January 2025 in Nakuru MC ELRC E073 of 2022 set aside
- 2.Prayer for contempt refused - no punishment meted on the Interested Parties
- 3.Costs of the application to be in the cause
- 4.Parties urged to attempt to resolve the matter amicably
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 165(6) of the Constitution (supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts) and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Prayer 4 - that the Interested Parties be found in contempt of the orders of 17th December 2024 and punished
Contempt was not proved to the required standard
Costs
Costs of the application will be 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.
The court is of the view that the lower court orders cannot go against the ELRC order in accordance with Article 162(2) of the Constitution.
The court finds there was clear forum shopping by the Interested Parties.
In view of the foregoing, the court finds that the application dated 5th February 2025 is merited and is allowed as follows: 1. Prayer No. 3 is granted.
The prayer for contempt is not proved and so the same is not allowed and no punishment will be meted on the Interested Parties.
The costs of the application will be in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently cites the subordinate court case number and year, referring variously to E074 of 2022, E073/2022, E074 of 2023 and E074 of 2024
The judgment states the orders of 31st January 2025 were granted by Hon. R. Kefa on 30th January 2025 in one passage
The subordinate court order quoted contains internal date contradictions ('17th February, 2025' and '17th of January, 2025') which the judgment itself marks as (sic)
The applicant's motion names Nakuru MC ELRC E074 of 2022 while the substance of the litigation concerns Nakuru MC ELRC E073/2022 and E074 of 2024, and the judgment notes uncertainty over the filing
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Chief Magistrates Court Nakuru & another; Elemech Engineering Company Limited & another (Interested Parties); Njarama (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review E013 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1984 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review No. E012 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1984/eng@2025-06-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.