Onyango v Speaker County Assembly of Migori & 3 others (Cause E088 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2829 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether removal of the claimant's name from the payroll breached the judgment of 17th February 2025
No contempt was made out; the judgment made no order requiring retention on the payroll, and the retention had been sustained only by the interim injunction of 29th February 2024 which lapsed with the judgment
The court traced the history: the interim order of 29th February 2024 restrained implementation of the revocation resolution pending determination of the claim. The judgment of 17th February 2025 granted only a declaration of unfairness, two months' gross salary compensation, and costs, expressly declining reinstatement. Once the suit was determined, nothing barred removal of the name from the payroll. Alleging contempt was a misrepresentation of the court order.
Elements and standard of proof for civil contempt
The court applied the settled three/four-element test and the heightened standard of proof, neither of which the applicant satisfied
Relying on Samuel M. N. Mweru v National Land Commission and Mutitika v Baharini Farm Ltd, the court restated that contempt requires proof of the terms of the order, knowledge, failure to comply, and deliberate or intentional conduct, proved to a standard higher than balance of probabilities. The applicant could not even show an order directed at the named individuals.
Whether the declaration of unfair revocation reinstated the claimant
It did not; reinstatement was declined and compensation under Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act was awarded in lieu
The applicant's argument that the declaration rendered the County Assembly resolution void and reinstated him was rejected as convoluted. Both revocation/reinstatement and compensation are discretionary reliefs under Section 49(1)(c); the court had declined reinstatement with reasons and awarded two months' gross salary instead, ending the claimant's tenure on 17th February 2025.
Legal principles established
#- To succeed in civil contempt the applicant must prove the terms of the order, knowledge of those terms by the respondent, and failure to comply, with wilfulness and bad faith inferred but rebuttable
- The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than the balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt
- Non-compliance must be wilful and mala fides; bona fide unreasonable non-compliance does not constitute contempt
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's Notice of Motion dated 7th July, 2025 is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act; Section 13 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Onyango v Speaker County Assembly of Migori & 3 others (Cause E088 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2829 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 7th July, 2025 (arising from Claim heard and determined by judgment delivered 17th February, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2829/eng@2025-10-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.