[2018] KEELRC 1037 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 1037 (KLR)

The court found that the respondents willfully disobeyed clear and subsisting court orders that restrained them from altering the petitioners' terms of engagement, suspending them from office, and required the continued payment of their salaries. The respondents failed to provide any credible evidence of compliance,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 1037 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Dorothy Mwanzia Ng'ang'a; Applicant: Andrew Kituku Metho; Applicant: Fredrick Muli Kasoa; Applicant: Scholarsticah Mueni Mboi; Applicant: Philip Mulwa Nzioka; Respondent: Machakos County Government; Respondent: The Governor, Machakos County; Respondent: The County Assembly, Machakos County; Respondent: Francis Mwaka; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 79 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
HS Wasilwa
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Public Service Employment, Fair Administrative Action, Suspension and Removal From Office
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Constitutional Law Contempt of Court Public Service Employment Fair Administrative Action Suspension and Removal From Office

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dorothy Mwanzia Ng'ang'a

Applicant

Andrew Kituku Metho

Applicant

Fredrick Muli Kasoa

Applicant

Scholarsticah Mueni Mboi

Applicant

Philip Mulwa Nzioka

Applicant

Machakos County Government

Respondent

The Governor, Machakos County

Respondent

The County Assembly, Machakos County

Respondent

Francis Mwaka

Respondent

The Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Ruling on Contempt Application

  1. 1 Whether the respondents willfully disobeyed court orders restraining changes to the petitioners' terms and suspending them from office.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' actions amounted to contempt of court under Section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 2016.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents were justified in withholding salaries and closing offices of the petitioners despite subsisting court orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents willfully disobeyed clear and subsisting court orders that restrained them from altering the petitioners' terms of engagement, suspending them from office, and required the continued payment of their salaries. The respondents failed to provide any credible evidence of compliance, such as proof of salary payments or access to offices, and instead merely put the applicants to strict proof. The court held that allegations of abuse of office or criminal conduct against the petitioners were not a valid justification for disregarding court orders, as such matters should be addressed by the appropriate investigative authorities and not used as a pretext for...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Summons to issue against the 2nd and 4th respondents to explain why they should not be held in contempt of court.
  • Costs in the cause.