Nzioki & 7 others v St Mary’s Mission Hospital & 3 others (Cause 538 of 2011) (Employment and Labour) [2012] KEIC 15 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Industrial Court jailed two officials for one month each for ignoring a court order, confirming that anyone defying court orders can be punished.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Power to punish for contempt and its source in Kenyan law
The power to punish for contempt derives from Section 5 of the Judicature Act Cap 8, which confers the same power as the High Court of Justice in England, extending to upholding the authority and dignity of subordinate courts
The Court traced the statutory basis of contempt jurisdiction to the Judicature Act and relied on the locus classicus Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd, holding that even a person not named in an order or not a party to the proceedings may be guilty of contempt for knowingly impeding the administration of justice.
Sufficiency of service of the order
Service on a party's solicitor is sufficient to found an application for committal, and the Respondents' affidavits admitted knowledge of the order notwithstanding vague or denied service
Applying Order 24 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, the Court found service effected. The 2nd Respondent deposed to knowledge of the order; the 3rd Respondent admitted ignoring it. Such admissions of knowledge, not technical service, founded the committal applications.
Guilt of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents
The 2nd and 3rd Respondents were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of contempt and each was committed for one month
The Court found the order of 27th April 2012 had been disobeyed and blatantly ignored. The 2nd Respondent deposed to knowledge of the order; the 3rd Respondent attempted to deny proper service yet admitted opting to ignore the order. The submission that staff members opposed the Claimants' return to work was itself an admission of contempt by others.
Liability of the 4th Respondent
The application for committal against the 4th Respondent failed as his role was minimal
The 4th Respondent merely delivered letters, was not involved in managing the 1st Respondent's facilities, and was not cited as part of the mob that chased the nuns from the facilities; an administration policeman manned the gate, not him.
Legal principles established
#- Anyone who knowingly impedes or interferes with the administration of justice is guilty of contempt whether or not named in the order
- Contempt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt before the wide power to punish is exercised
- Court orders must be obeyed regardless of whether the contemnor approves of them; redress lies in appeal or review
Court orders
#- 1.The Orders of the Court made on 27th April 2012 MUST be obeyed and it matters not if the contemnor is named as a party or not
- 2.An order of committal of the 2nd Respondent, Dr. Marangu Rucha, for one month
- 3.An order of committal of the 3rd Respondent, Mr. Walter Konya, for one month for contempt of court
- 4.The Claimants awarded the costs of the Application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 5 of the Judicature Act Cap 8, Laws of Kenya, and Order 52 Rule 2 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of England
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nzioki & 7 others v St Mary’s Mission Hospital & 3 others (Cause 538 of 2011) (Employment and Labour) [2012] KEIC 15 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2012). Chamber Summons dated 5th June 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keic/2012/15/eng@2012-08-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.