Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELRC 2916 (KLR)

Chelimo v Director General National Intelligence Service & another; Haji (Contemnor) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 256 of 2016) [2025] KEELRC 2916 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
28 October 2025
2,662 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court declined to jail the NIS Director General for ignoring reinstatement orders, but urged a swift resolution of the ex-officer's case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant/Applicant, Vincent Chelimo, moved the Employment and Labour Relations Court by Notice of Motion dated 5th February 2025 seeking committal to civil jail of the Director General of the National Intelligence Service for disobeying the court's judgment of 6th March 2018, which ordered his immediate reinstatement without loss of benefits following dismissal on 30th June 2015. He also sought immediate remittance of withheld salary and benefits with interest, continued monthly remittances, and unrestricted access to his workplace. He relied on the Court of Appeal's dismissal of the appeal in Civil Appeal No. 645 of 2019 and its vacation of the stay. The Respondents, through an affidavit sworn by Head of Legal Carol Sigei, opposed the application, arguing it was defective for want of a penal notice under Rule 81.9 of the UK Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2012, that contempt required proof of wilful disobedience to a higher standard, and that reinstatement after ten years was impractical given the security nature of the institution, integrity concerns, vetting requirements, and budgetary constraints under the Public Finance Management Act. The court considered whether the respondents' affidavit should be expunged, whether the application was competent, and whether the respondents wilfully disobeyed the orders. Not finding the respondents guilty of contempt, the court accepted their explanation as plausible but directed that the issue be resolved within the shortest time possible, with agreeable timelines, and awarded costs in the claim.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the respondents were guilty of contempt for failing to reinstate the applicant and remit his dues

Holding

No contempt found; the respondents' explanation of institutional, security and budgetary constraints was accepted as plausible

Reasoning

The court weighed the subsisting reinstatement orders of 6th March 2018, upheld on appeal, against the respondents' averments that ten years had elapsed, terminal dues had been paid, and that as a security organisation re-engagement required vetting and Treasury/budgetary approvals. It found the explanation plausible but stressed it did not exonerate the respondents from acting towards vetting or retraining the applicant.

p. 6
02

Whether the contempt application was incompetent for want of a penal notice on the served order

Holding

The defect was argued by the respondents but the court did not rest its decision on it, disposing of the matter on the merits of wilfulness

Reasoning

The respondents contended that service of the order on 17th July 2024 without a penal notice rendered the application fatally defective, relying on Rule 81.9 of the UK Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2012. The court, however, determined the application on whether contempt was established, without expressly ruling on the procedural objection.

p. 5
03

Whether the affidavit sworn by the 1st Respondent's legal officer should be expunged

Holding

The affidavit was competent; the deponent had personal and official knowledge and was authorised to swear it

Reasoning

The respondents argued that Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules permits affidavits based on personal knowledge, and that Section 9(3) of the National Intelligence Service Act empowers the Director General to delegate functions to a member of the Service. The legal officer's affidavit was therefore within her knowledge and competence. The court did not expunge it.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • To succeed in civil contempt, the applicant must prove the terms of the order, the respondent's knowledge of those terms, and the respondent's failure to comply
  • An order to be enforced by contempt proceedings must bear a prominently displayed penal notice warning of the consequences of disobedience

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The court declined to find the respondents guilty of contempt
  2. 2.The court expressed the expectation that the respondents resolve the reinstatement/vetting issue in the shortest time possible with agreeable timelines
  3. 3.Costs in the claim
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 5 of the Judicature Act (contempt of court jurisdiction)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chelimo v Director General National Intelligence Service & another; Haji (Contemnor) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 256 of 2016) [2025] KEELRC 2916 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2916/eng@2025-10-28

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