[2020] KEELRC 104 (KLR)

[2020] KEELRC 104 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant was guilty of material non-disclosure when seeking interim orders, failing to inform the court of the restoration of his salary, the conclusion of the disciplinary process, and prior rulings on the matter. The interim orders were thus obtained on incomplete information. The court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELRC 104 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Amos William Omollo; Respondent: County Government of Kisumu; Respondent: Governor, Kisumu County (Peter Anyang Nyong'o); Respondent: County Secretary, Kisumu County (Godfrey M. Kigochi); Respondent: Chairman, County Public Service Board (Babu Kharan)
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 42 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
MN Nduma
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Material Non Disclosure, Disciplinary Processes, Interim Orders
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Material Non Disclosure Disciplinary Processes Interim Orders

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amos William Omollo

Applicant

County Government of Kisumu

Respondent

Governor, Kisumu County (Peter Anyang Nyong'o)

Respondent

County Secretary, Kisumu County (Godfrey M. Kigochi)

Respondent

Chairman, County Public Service Board (Babu Kharan)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Ruling on Contempt Application

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were in contempt of court orders issued on 11/10/2019 and 9/4/2020.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was guilty of material non-disclosure when seeking interim orders.
  3. 3 Whether the interim orders were obtained on the basis of incomplete or misleading information.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was guilty of material non-disclosure when seeking interim orders, failing to inform the court of the restoration of his salary, the conclusion of the disciplinary process, and prior rulings on the matter. The interim orders were thus obtained on incomplete information. The court held that, had the full facts been disclosed, the interim orders would not have been granted. As such, the application for contempt lacked merit, as the orders allegedly disobeyed were improperly obtained. The respondents could not be held in contempt for failing to comply with orders that would not have been issued had the court been fully informed. The application was...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 20th April 2020 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.