[2002] KEHC 261 (KLR)
The court found that there was no evidence that the Registrar of Trade Unions, or any specifically named individual, was personally served with the court order containing a penal notice. Furthermore, the alleged act of registering non-members occurred before the issuance of the order, making it impossible for the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEHC 261 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Job Wainaina Mucuha & Another; Respondent: Registrar of Trade Unions; Respondent: Kenya Union of Entertainment & Music Industry Employer
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 1655 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Service of Orders, Penal Notice Requirements
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Job Wainaina Mucuha & Another
Applicant
Registrar of Trade Unions
Respondent
Kenya Union of Entertainment & Music Industry Employer
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Registrar of Trade Unions was in contempt of the court order dated 4/1/2000.
- 2 Whether there was sufficient evidence of personal service and disobedience of the court order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was no evidence that the Registrar of Trade Unions, or any specifically named individual, was personally served with the court order containing a penal notice. Furthermore, the alleged act of registering non-members occurred before the issuance of the order, making it impossible for the order to have been disobeyed in relation to those acts. The application failed to specify what was stayed by the order, and there was no proof of disobedience. Consequently, the application for contempt was dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for contempt is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MISC. APP. 1655 OF 1999
JOB WAINAINA MUCUHA & ANR ……........…………................…APPLICANT
VERSUS
THE REGITRAR OF TRADE UNIONSKENYA UNION
OF ENTERTAINMENT& MUSIC INDUSTRY EMPLOYER …......RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
By the chamber summons of the 15. 3.2001 as annexed applicant seeks to an order that the Registrar of Trade Unions be held in contempt of the order of this court of the 4/1/2000 and be committed to civil jail.
The order in questions order (3) states:-
“That there will be a temporary stay until the hearing of the motion which will be filed in 21 days”.
The order with a penal notice was served according to Jasheth Aluvale Mashetu in his affidavit of the 15/3/2001 on the Senior Deputy Registrar General on the 16. 2.2001.
The application now seeks the order asked for on the tasks that on the 26/11/1999 the Registrar of Trade Unions without any other of right purportedly registered non members to occupy all the offices including those that were not vacant (see para 5 of the applicants affidavit of the 15/3/2001).
I can find no evidence on the application other than a rare assertion by the applicant that the Registrar General did register non-members to occupy all the said offices on the 26. 11. 1999. If in fact that Registrar General had registered non-members on the 26/11/1999 as alleged then as Mr. Langat points out the order could not relate to matters in the past and as such there could be no contempt.
In order for an application of this kind to succeed there must be an order which either directs or forbids someone to either do some act or refrain from it. The order must be served personally on the person in question. The order having a penal notice evidenced thereon. The person served who must be named must be shown to have disobeyed the order by either doing or not doing something which the order directs or forbids.
In this case I do not know the name of the person on whom the order was served. Further there is no evidence that that person disobeyed the order.
I am not at all clear what the order in fact stayed as this is not stated in the application and I see no reason why the person on whom the order was stayed should be any the wiser.
I find no merit in the application which I dismiss with costs.
P. RANSLEY
COMMISSIONER FOR ASSIZE
6. 2.2002
Coram: Ransley, Commissioner for Assize
Martha Court clerk
Mr. Opiyo for applicant
Mr. Ochieng for 2nd respondent
No appearance for 1st respondent
Ruling delivered.
P. RANSLEY
COMMISSIONER FOR ASSIZE