[2021] KEELRC 69 (KLR)

[2021] KEELRC 69 (KLR)

The court found that the application for leave to commence contempt proceedings was fundamentally defective because it was premised on a non-existent court order. The record showed that the only order issued on 18th November, 2020 was an order restraining the respondent from acts of victimization, not the broader...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELRC 69 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kenya Concrete, Structural, Ceramics, Tiles Woodplys and Interior Designworkers Union; Respondent: Comply Industries Limited; Interested Party: Kenya Building Construction, Timber and Furniture Employees Union
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause E558 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Commence Contempt Proceedings and Clarification of Prior Orders
Outcome
Application for leave to commence contempt proceedings dismissed; application for clarification of ruling found unnecessary; parties to proceed to pre-trial and hearing of main suit.
Judges
AG Ringera
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Union Dues Remittance, Status Quo Orders, Affidavit of Service, Interim Injunctions
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Contempt of Court Union Dues Remittance Status Quo Orders Affidavit of Service Interim Injunctions

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

Parties

Kenya Concrete, Structural, Ceramics, Tiles Woodplys and Interior Designworkers Union

Applicant

Comply Industries Limited

Respondent

Kenya Building Construction, Timber and Furniture Employees Union

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Commence Contempt Proceedings and Clarification of Prior Orders

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established a valid basis for leave to commence contempt proceedings against the respondent's officers for alleged disobedience of court orders.
  2. 2 Whether the orders allegedly disobeyed were in fact issued by the court on 18th November, 2020.
  3. 3 Whether the application for contempt was supported by valid and accurate evidence of service and existence of the relevant court orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for leave to commence contempt proceedings was fundamentally defective because it was premised on a non-existent court order. The record showed that the only order issued on 18th November, 2020 was an order restraining the respondent from acts of victimization, not the broader orders alleged by the applicant. The affidavit of service relied upon by the applicant was also erroneous, referencing service of an order before it was actually issued. As such, the applicant failed to establish a valid basis for contempt proceedings. Regarding the interested party's application for clarification, the court held that its previous ruling was clear: the status quo...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to commence contempt proceedings dismissed; application for clarification of ruling found unnecessary; parties to proceed to pre-trial and hearing of main suit.

Orders

  • The application dated 20th April, 2021 for leave to commence contempt proceedings is dismissed.
  • The application dated 30th June, 2021 for clarification of the ruling is found unnecessary as the ruling is clear.