Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNotice of motion dated 11th November 2024 in a petition pending since 2019· [2025] KEELRC 2689 (KLR)

Kenya County Government Workers Union Bungoma Branch v County Public Service Board of Bungoma & another (Petition 1 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 2689 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
1 October 2025
3,700 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~15 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenyan court finds county officials in contempt for ignoring a 2020 employment judgment and orders them to personally show why they shouldn't be punished.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This first-instance ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Bungoma, delivered by David Nderitu J on 1st October 2025, determined a notice of motion dated 11th November 2024 in which the petitioner sought contempt findings against officers of the County Government of Bungoma and Bungoma County Water & Sewerage Services Co. Ltd for failing to comply with a judgment of Nduma J of 13th May 2020 (affirmed by Keli J on 28th July 2023) requiring absorption of 463 employees into permanent and pensionable employment on minimum statutory terms. The respondents acknowledged the judgment but claimed an inability to comply due to budgetary constraints, alleged confusion over the identity of the 463 employees, and a pending appeal against a ruling of 25th September 2024 which had expunged their verification report. The court held that contempt must be proved beyond balance of probabilities but below beyond reasonable doubt, and that the applicant had proved a valid order, the officers' knowledge, and willful refusal to obey. It found the alleged appeal unsupported and misleading, noted that an appeal is not a stay and does not touch the 2020 judgment, and rejected the budget and confusion excuses as unsubstantiated. The court found the named individuals responsible for enforcing the orders and guilty of contempt through five years of delaying tactics. It restrained the respondents from harassing or discriminating against the 463 members, directed the named contemnors to appear in court to show cause why they should not be punished, provided for arrest on default, and awarded costs to the petitioner.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the application met the threshold for contempt findings against the named officers

Holding

Yes. The existence of the valid judgment of 13th May 2020 was uncontested, the officers admitted or did not deny knowledge and official designations, and no lawful reason for non-compliance was advanced.

Reasoning

The court found the judgment and orders unambiguous and unchallenged on the merits; the alleged appeal was unsupported by any notice or memorandum of appeal and did not concern the 2020 judgment; the budgetary constraint claim was unsupported by audited accounts or any demonstrated effort to comply. Five years of non-compliance constituted willful contempt warranting show-cause proceedings against the named individuals.

p. 7
02

Whether the alleged pending appeal excuses compliance

Holding

No. The appeal allegation was found false or misleading, and in any event an appeal is not a stay and does not affect the 13th May 2020 judgment.

Reasoning

No notice or memorandum of appeal was annexed to the replying affidavits. The alleged appeal targeted the 25th September 2024 ruling, not the underlying judgment. Even if it succeeded, it would not disturb the judgment ordering absorption of the 463 employees. The ground therefore held no water.

p. 7
03

Whether the respondents' claims of confusion over the 463 employees and lack of budget were valid excuses

Holding

No. The judgment and the ruling of 28th July 2023 were clear and specific on the list of 463 affected employees, and no audited accounts showed budgetary impact.

Reasoning

The court found no ambiguity in the identity and number of the affected employees, consistent with Keli J's earlier ruling affirming the figure of 463. The respondents produced no audited accounts or evidence of efforts to comply since 2020, and their conduct amounted to delaying tactics aimed at denying the employees the fruits of a lawful judgment.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • Standard of proof in contempt proceedings is above balance of probabilities but below beyond reasonable doubt.
  • Three elements must be proved to successfully prosecute contempt: existence of a valid order, awareness by the contemnor, and willful failure to obey.
  • A juristic person acts only through natural persons, who may be pursued personally for enforcing compliance with court orders.
  • A filed or intended appeal does not amount to a stay of execution.
  • Litigation must come to an end and prolonged non-compliance with a lawful judgment constitutes contempt of court.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The respondents, their agents, servants, officers, officials and employees are restrained from threatening, profiling, discriminating or harassing the named 463 members of the petitioner or interfering with their employment.
  2. 2.The named contemnors shall appear in court on an appointed date to show-cause why they should not be punished for the established and proved contempt.
  3. 3.Failure to appear shall render the contemnors amenable to arrest.
  4. 4.Costs of the application to the petitioner.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) RulesRule 81.4
  • Judicature ActSection 5
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 63(c)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6
  • Employment Act, No. 11 of 2007Sections 5, 35, 37; Parts II, III, IV, V, VI
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 23, 27, 28, 41(1), 41, 232
  • English Civil Procedure Rules (Amendment No. 3)2020

Cases cited (5)

  • Kenya Human Rights Commission V Attorney General & Another
    (2018) eKLR
  • Christine Wangari Gachege V Elizabeth Wanjiru Evans & 11 Others
    (2014) eKLR
  • Kontoine Koilel & 2 Others V Kanin Krsai Koilel & Another
    (2022) eKLR
  • Republic V Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another
    (2019) eKLR
  • Ndungu V Mutua
    (2024) KEHC 6276 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 81.4 of the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules, 2012 (contempt of court); Section 5 of the Judicature Act and Section 63(c) of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya County Government Workers Union Bungoma Branch v County Public Service Board of Bungoma & another (Petition 1 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 2689 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of motion dated 11th November 2024 in a petition pending since 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2689/eng@2025-10-01

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.