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 the judgment (application dated 2nd May 2025)· [2025] KEELRC 3758 (KLR)

Macharia v Guaranty Trust Bank Kenya Limited; Adeniji & 2 others (Contemnor) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E050 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3758 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
18 December 2025
1,638 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioner, an employee of Guaranty Trust Bank (Kenya) Ltd, moved the court by notice of motion seeking to cite the Respondent's Directors (Jubril Adenji, Maimuna Hassan, Milkah Wamae and Caroline Tegek) for contempt of conservatory orders issued on 2nd April 2025, which had restrained the Respondent from harassing, discriminating against or interfering with his employment as Team Leader, Corporate Banking. He complained of continued implementation of a Performance Improvement Plan, a changed reporting line, new business cards bearing a different title, and being required to vacate his office. The Respondent filed a replying affidavit of Milkah Wamae and a preliminary objection, contending that leave had not been sought to cite the Directors personally, and that a consent order recorded before Ongaya J on 20th May 2025 clarified that the orders of 2nd April 2025 did not suspend the employment contract, leaving the Respondent free to exercise managerial and disciplinary powers. The court framed two issues: whether the application was fatally defective for want of leave, and whether contempt was proved to the required standard. Applying Geoffrey Katheri v East Africa Cement and Katsuri Limited v Kapurchand Shah, it held the application totally defective because leave to cite the Directors personally, and to lift the corporate veil, was never sought. It further found that the consent order varied and substituted the 2nd April orders, that those orders were ambiguous, and that they never injuncted the Respondent from implementing the PIP or lawful disciplinary action. The application was dismissed in its entirety on 18th December 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the contempt application was defective for want of leave to cite the Directors personally

Holding

The application was totally defective because no leave was sought to cite the Directors of the Respondent for contempt.

Reasoning

Relying on Geoffrey Katheri v East Africa Cement Co. Ltd and Katsuri Limited v Kapurchand Depor Shah, the court held that Directors of a corporate entity cannot be cited personally for contempt committed in the company's name unless the applicant first obtains leave and lifts the corporate veil. Failure to cite the company itself denied the applicant the chance to pursue the Directors.

p. 4
02

Whether contempt was proved to the required standard

Holding

Contempt was not proved; the 2/4/2025 order as varied by the consent of 20/5/2025 did not injunct the Respondent from implementing the PIP or exercising managerial and disciplinary powers.

Reasoning

The court found the original orders ambiguous and held that the consent recorded before Ongaya J on 20/5/2025 varied and substituted them, clarifying that the orders did not suspend the employment contract. The Respondent therefore retained residual managerial powers to discipline and implement the PIP, and the Petitioner failed to prove breach to the required standard.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Leave must first be sought and obtained before Directors or officers of a company may be cited for contempt committed in the name of the company; the corporate veil must first be lifted.
  • A consent order compromising and varying an earlier order supersedes it, and contempt cannot be founded on breach of the superseded order.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applications dated 7th June 2025 and 18th July 2025 are dismissed for want of mandatory leave to cite the Directors for contempt of court and for lack of merit.

Authorities

#

Cases cited (3)

  • Geoffrey Katheri and 10 others versus East Africa Cement Co. Ltd and others
    [2021] KECA 1043 (KLR)
  • Katsuri Limited versus Kapurchand Depor Shah
    [2016] eKLR
  • Katsuri Limited versus Kapurchand Shah
    [2016] KEHC 6447 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction; contempt in connection with conservatory orders issued by the ELRC on 2nd April 2025

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Macharia v Guaranty Trust Bank Kenya Limited; Adeniji & 2 others (Contemnor) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E050 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3758 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (application dated 2nd May 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3758/eng@2025-12-18

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