Bakery Confectionery Food Manufacturing & Allied Workers Union (K) v Brava Food Industries Limited; Bood & 2 others (Contemnor) (Cause E899 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2275 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Elements of civil contempt
The court applied the four-element test from Burchell v Burchell and found all elements satisfied: the order was clear, the Directors had notice, they breached it, and their conduct was deliberate
The court adopted the South African formulation requiring proof that the order was clear and unambiguous, that the defendant had knowledge or notice, acted in breach, and did so deliberately. It found the Directors and General Manager were all aware of the 24th October 2024 order and its import, and that the Respondent thwarted every effort to negotiate the CBA, postponing meetings and abandoning the negotiating table.
Lifting the corporate veil to cite Directors for contempt
The Directors were held personally liable for the company's disobedience
The court accepted that the named Directors are responsible for implementing decisions of the company and cannot hide behind the corporate veil to defeat court processes. Finding they knowingly and wilfully disobeyed the order, the court cited them jointly and severally for contempt.
Validity of the National Labour Board de-recognition proceedings and balloting
The proceedings and the balloting exercise before the National Labour Board were a nullity; the Union was right to boycott the ballot
Relying on Ocharo J's ruling in ELRC Misc. No E060 of 2022 and the court's own judgment of 24th October 2024, the court affirmed that the National Labour Board has no power to review decisions of the Court, making the de-recognition proceedings a nullity. The balloting purportedly supervised by the Board was consequently a nullity and the Claimant was justified in boycotting it.
Legal principles established
#- A party who obtains a court order is entitled to have it obeyed; defiance is not an option and avenues of challenge lie in the law
- Civil contempt requires proof of clear and unambiguous terms of the order, knowledge or notice, breach, and deliberateness
- Directors cannot hide behind the veil of incorporation to defeat implementation of court orders binding the company
Court orders
#- 1.The Directors Hussein Hassan Bood, Ali Mohamed Ahmed and Bachir Mohammed Mahamoud are cited for contempt of court for knowingly and wilfully disobeying the order of the Court issued on 24th October 2024
- 2.Mitigation and sentencing on 22nd September 2025 at 10.00 am
- 3.The ruling be served on the National Labour Board
- 4.Orders accordingly
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Contempt jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court to enforce its own judgment and decree of 24th October 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bakery Confectionery Food Manufacturing & Allied Workers Union (K) v Brava Food Industries Limited; Bood & 2 others (Contemnor) (Cause E899 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2275 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Cause (Contempt Application dated 24th February 2025) arising from judgment delivered 24th October 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2275/eng@2025-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.