https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1871

Kenya County Government Workers Union v County Government of Bomet & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E016 of 2022) [2026] KEELRC 1871 (KLR) (18 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1871 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kericho Employment and Labour Relations Cause E016 of 2022 AN Mwaure, J June 18, 2026 Between Kenya County Government Workers Union Claimant and County Government Of Bomet 1st Respondent County Public Service Board of Bomet 2nd Respondent Ruling Introduction 1.Before this Honourable court is directions pertaining to the Claimant’s application dated 27th April 2026 and leading to the contempt of court application and then sentencing of the Contemnors. 2.Both parties submitted orally before this Honourable Court, and there were also affidavits filed in respect to the orders issued on 26th February 2026 by this Honourable Court. 3.The Claimant also filed a Notice of Motion dated 27th April 2026 under certificate of urgency against the Respondents’ continued disobedience of court orders. The Claimant prays for interlocutory injunctions restraining the Respondents from advertising, interviewing, shortlisting, recruiting, or employing persons to replace the Claimant’s members, and for an order staying or quashing the recruitment process for nine positions advertised on 2nd April 2026. It further seeks to have senior officers of Bomet County, including the Governor, County Secretary, Chairperson and CEO of the Public Service Board, and all Board Members summoned to show cause why they should not be cited for contempt of Hon. Justice Nderitu’s orders of 28th October 2022, Hon. Justice Mwaure’s ruling of 6th February 2026, Court of Appeal Civil Application No. COACAPPL E029 of 2024 (Bomet County v County Public Service Board of Bomet & Kenya County Government Workers Union), where Justices Warsame, Kiage and Ochieng issued orders on 14th May 2024, and Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2024 (Bomet County v County Public Service Board of Bomet & Kenya County Government Workers Union) decided on 18th July 2025. On failing to show cause, the officers should be committed to civil jail for up to six months, with enforcement by the Officer Commanding Bomet Police Station. The application also requests review of directions issued on 19th March 2026 to prioritize ruling and sentencing, any other appropriate orders, and costs against the Respondents. 4.The application is premised on the grounds that the Respondents are habitual contemnors who have repeatedly disregarded court orders, only complying when cited or threatened with committal. This is the fourth contempt application, with one already pending sentencing after they were cited on 6th February 2026. Despite directions for sentencing on 19th March 2026, the matter was erroneously listed for mention, raising concerns about fidelity to the rule of law. Meanwhile, the Respondents have unlawfully advertised positions occupied by the Claimant’s members, despite existing judgments and appellate rulings affirming their employment rights. Their actions have caused severe financial distress to the Claimant’s members, even resulting in loss of life, and demonstration of deliberate disobedience of binding court orders. The continued contempt undermines the dignity of the Court and necessitates immediate intervention through sentencing and committal to civil jail. Respondents’ affidavits 5.The Respondents filed their respective affidavits related to the orders issued on 26th February 2026 and, dated 17th March 2026. 6.Both Governor Prof. Hillary Barchok and County Secretary Simon Lang’at confirmed that thirty‑nine (39) grievants had been placed on the payroll and that efforts were underway to collect missing academic and professional certificates. However, they highlighted challenges, stating that some grievants lacked mandatory documents, that Ismael Kipkoech was deceased, that another, Rebecca Tuei, had surpassed retirement age, and that seven others could not be traced. Both deponents argued that including unqualified, deceased, or retired persons would contravene employment and finance laws, sought the court’s guidance on exclusions, and prayed for the lifting of the pending contempt citation while affirming respect for the court’s authority. 7.Milca C. Rono, Chief Officer for Economic Planning in Bomet County, stated that the Department of Finance, ICT, and Economic Planning submitted the County Fiscal Strategy Paper (CFSP) 2026/2027 to the County Assembly by 28th February 2026, which was deliberated and approved on 12th March 2026. She expressed respect for the court’s authority, affirmed commitment to the judicial process, and prayed for the lifting of the pending contempt citation, attaching a letter from the County Assembly Clerk as proof of approval. 8.Erick Ronoh confirmed his retirement from Bomet County on 1st November 2025, attached proof, and asked the Court to lift the contempt citation and discharge him from the matter. 9.The Respondent responded to the application dated 27th April 2026 vide replying affidavit sworn by Simon Lang’at on behalf of Bomet officials, opposed the contempt application, stating compliance with the judgment was in progress despite delays from budgetary and administrative hurdles. He denied willful disobedience, noted 127 grievants’ files were under vetting, and argued advertised vacancies did not affect them, urging dismissal of the application. 10.Parties submitted orally in court on 19th March 2026. Claimant’s submissions 11.Counsel for the Claimants submitted that, although the Respondent’s County Solicitor extended an invitation to the grievants for a meeting, the same was delayed and did not result in compliance with the judgments of Honourable Justice Nderitu or of the Court of Appeal. The Claimants attributed this non‑compliance to the Respondents’ failure to allocate the requisite funds and, in support of that contention, relied on JR No. 10 of 2020, Republic v Nairobi County Government & another in support of that proposition. 12.It was further submitted that fewer than 20 grievants were issued with appointment letters, which are of no legal effect as they lack essential particulars prescribed under Section 10 of the Employment Act. Counsel argued that grievants are being compelled to sign the defective letters and are subjected to victimization by the Respondents. Out of the 595 grievants, 11 grievants have since passed away while awaiting the fruits of their judgments. Counsel noted that he had personally met with over four hundred grievants and urged the Court to empathize with their plight, emphasizing that binding judgments exist from both this court and the Court of Appeal. He therefore prayed that the matter be fixed for sentencing. Respondent’s submissions 13.Counsel for the Respondents submitted that judgment was delivered in February 2024, followed by an appeal in COACA No. E084 of 2024, which was determined in July 2025. During the pendency of the appeal, the Respondent sought a stay of execution in Misc. Application No. E029 of 2024, and was therefore unable to comply until July 2025. Counsel stated that compliance commenced thereafter, with progress reports filed in the affidavit dated 23rd February 2025. The grievants were subsequently placed on the payroll as of 17th March 2026, though the Respondent explained the financial hardship faced as a government institution. Counsel further argued that the number of grievants was 127, not 595, as guided by the Claimant’s own documents. One list contained 595 names, while a second list identified 127 members affected by the notices, with two names duplicated. These files were handed to the Public Service Board for processing, and payroll numbers were applied for from the National Government. Academic documents were said to be necessary for payroll inclusion. 14.Counsel added that some grievants could not be traced, some had attained retirement age, and only one had passed away, not eleven as alleged. On this basis, Counsel maintained that the Respondent had complied. 15.It was further submitted that the 5th to 11th citees swore affidavits dated 24th and 26th February 2026 demonstrating efforts toward compliance. Counsel therefore urged that the said citees be discharged, as there was no deliberate disobedience of this court, and affirmed the Respondents’ commitment to uphold the rule of law. Claimant’s further submissions 16.In rebuttal, counsel for the Claimants submitted that the Respondent ought to have demonstrated whether the grievants’ salaries had been computed and whether all 595 letters of appointment had been issued. Counsel emphasized that the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered on 18th July 2025 and expressly referred to 595 grievants, not 127 as alleged by the Respondent. He further argued that Regulation 35 of the Judicial Service Act obliges judicial officers to uphold the dignity of the Court, which is functus officio in respect of the matter. Counsel contended that the use of UDA payroll numbers was not a novel directive, as the Respondent was aware of the payroll system from 7th July 2023, when the judgment was delivered. Analysis and determination 17.The court has considered the oral submissions together with the affidavits on record; the issue for determination is whether the Respondents complied with the said court orders and whether they are in contempt of court, and furthermore, should the Contemnors be sentenced 18.In Ubora Housing Co-operative Society Ltd v Tripple Two Properties Ltd & 7 others [2023] KECA 675 (KLR), the Court of Appeal stated as follows:“We have considered the application, the rival affidavits, submissions of both counsel and the law. The prevailing provisions that guide the Court in such an application are found in section 5 of the Judicature Act, which provides inter alia:“ Contempt of court 1.The High Court and the Court of Appeal shall have the same power to punish for contempt of court as is for the time being possessed by the High Court of Justice in England, and such power shall extend to upholding the authority and dignity of subordinate courts. 2.An order of the High Court made by way of punishment for contempt of court shall be appealable as if it were a conviction and sentence made in the exercise of the ordinary original criminal jurisdiction of the High Court.” 19.Still in Ubora Housing Co-operative Society Ltd v Tripple Two Properties Ltd & 7 others(supra), where the court cited the case of Hadkinson v Hadkinson, (1952) ALL ER 567, where Romer, L.J. stated as follows:“It is the plain and unqualified obligation of every person against, or in respect of, whom an order is made by a court of competent jurisdiction to obey it unless and until that order is discharged. The uncompromising nature of this obligation is shown by the fact that it extends even to cases where the person affected by an order believes it to be irregular or even void. Lord Cottenham, L.C., said in Chuck v Cremer (1) (1 Coop. temp.Cott 342):“A party, who knows of an order, whether null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it… It would be most dangerous to hold that the suitors, or their solicitors, could themselves judge whether an order was null or valid, whether it was regular or irregular. That they should come to the court and not take upon themselves to determine such a question. That the course of a party knowing of an order, which was null or irregular, and who might be affected by it, was plain. He should apply to the court that it might be discharged. As long as it exists, it must not be disobeyed.” 20.In Shimmers Plaza Limited v National Bank of Kenya Limited [2015] KECA 945 (KLR), the Court of Appeal stated as follows:“We reiterate here that court orders must be obeyed. Parties against whom such orders are made cannot be allowed to trash them with impunity. Obedience of Court orders is not optional; rather, it is mandatory, and a person does not choose whether to obey a court order or not. For as Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th President of the United States of America, once said:-“No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not as a favour’’.The courts should not fold their hands in helplessness and watch as their orders are disobeyed with impunity left, right and centre. This would amount to abdication of our sacrosanct duty bestowed on us by the Constitution. The dignity, and authority of the Court must be protected, and that is why those who flagrantly disobey them must be punished, lest they lead us all to a state of anarchy. We think we have said enough to send this important message across.” 21.In this instant case, Justice David Nderitu, in his judgment delivered on 29th February 2024, paragraph 72 reads as follows:“The county governments and indeed our public institutions ought to disabuse themselves of the notion that each administration that takes the reins of power has to come with its own workforce and in the process terminate, by all means, the subsisting workforce.” 22.The Judge went ahead and gave the following orders:i.A declaratory order be and is hereby issued that the fundamental rights and freedoms of the grievants under Articles 41, 47, and 50 of the Constitution were violated by the unilateral decision and action of the respondents in issuance of the notices/letters of 30th September, 2022.ii.A declaration be and is hereby proclaimed and issued that the notices/letters of extension of contracts, which were indeed letters/notices of termination in disguise, were unjust, irregular, unfair, unlawful, null, and void.iii.Consequently, the impugned notices/letters be and herby quashed and nullified.iv.An order be and is hereby issued that the respondents shall not vary, alter, change, or interfere with the terms and conditions of employment for the grievants in any way or manner other than as provided in the law.v.The respondents, by themselves, agents, servants, delegates, and or others howsoever, are hereby prohibited from interviewing, recruiting, and or employing any persons to replace the grievants in their positions and or to perform the same or similar work, as performed by the members of the claimant, the grievants.vi.The respondents are hereby ordered to within 30 days of this judgment, pay all or any pending salaries, benefits, emoluments, and or other benefits that are due and payable to the grievants to date.vii.The respondents shall jointly and severally meet the costs of the cause. 23.The Ruling by Justice Anna Mwaure in paragraph 67 states as follows:“In this case, the court finds the Respondent disobeyed court orders issued by Justice David Nderitu’s vide his judgment of 29th February 2024, where he found the Respondents had violated employees’ constitutional rights by issuing disguised termination letters and interfering with their terms of employment, leading the court to quash the notices, bar recruitment of replacements, and order payment of salaries and benefits within 30 days. Despite these court orders, the Respondents failed to comply and continued their defiance even after the Court of Appeal, in COACAPPL E029 of 2024, directed maintenance of the status quo. Ultimately, in COACA E084 of 2024, the appellate court dismissed the 1st Respondent’s appeal with costs, emphasizing that devolution cannot be used to replace serving employees with political supporters. The Respondents’ actions have therefore prejudiced the Claimant’s members and highlighted their habitual contempt of court.” 24.This court on 6th February 2026 found that indeed the Respondents were in contempt and cases in COACAPPL No. E029 of 2024 and COACA No. E084 of 2024, where both were dismissed. The Respondents furnished the court with replying affidavits in compliance with the orders issued on 26th February 2026. In his affidavit, Mr. Erick Ronoh indicated that he was no longer an employee of the County Government of Bomet, but he is still liable as he was an employee all this period. The remaining affidavits stated that thirty‑nine (39) grievants had been included in the county payroll, while the others failed to submit the requisite academic and professional certificates, which were mandatory for payroll inclusion. It was further noted that Ismael Kipkoech is deceased and that Rebecca Tuei had attained the retirement age. From the Respondents’ oral submissions, reference was made to a report dated 17th March 2026, though this Honourable Court has not been furnished with a copy of the said report, neither physically nor on CTS, as at the time of writing of the Ruling. 25.The court is of the view that it became functus officio upon delivery of its judgment, yet the Respondents have to date failed to comply with the said orders. It is noted with concern that the Respondents proceeded to advertise jobs despite subsisting court orders. While steps have been taken toward reinstating the grievants, compliance remains incomplete. In particular, the Respondents ought to have engaged the Claimants to facilitate the inclusion of all grievants in the payroll. As matters stand, only thirty‑nine (39) grievants were reinstated within the one‑month period, which falls short of full compliance with the court’s directive. 26.In Lena Chemoiwo v Bomas of Kenya; General Manager Bomas of Kenya Peter Gitaa & 2 others (Contemnor) [2021] KEELRC 1150 (KLR), the court held as follows:“In my considered opinion, since the Order made by this Honourable Court on 22nd April 2021 is yet to be set aside or discharged, the same remains valid and binding upon the Respondent and the 3 Alleged Contemnors. As they have all been proved to be in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt, I accordingly convict the alleged contemnors Mr. Peter Gitaa, General Manager, Bomas of Kenya, Mr. Jimmy Okidiangi – the Human Resources Manager, Bomas of Kenya and Mr. Joseph Willie Njoroge Kamau – Head of Property Management Department, Bomas of Kenya. Coupled by the fact that the 3 Contemnors have not shown any remorse whatsoever for their wilful disobedience of the Court orders issued by Mbaru J., they are each sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs. 500,000/- within the next 3 days, and in default of making the said payment, each shall serve 3 months jail sentence for their wilful disobedience of Court orders. 27.I further direct and order that the Respondent and the 3 Contemnors to remit immediately to the Applicant withheld monthly salary for the months of January, February and March 2021 amounting to Kshs. 448,257/-, and the subsequent months not remitted for as long as the Claimant/Applicant is under the employment of the Respondent. Further I hereby direct and order the Respondent and the 3 Contemnors, to continue remitting to the Applicant her monthly salary and dues as per her pay slip and grant the Applicant unlimited access to her work place until the hearing and determination of this Claim. The cost of this application shall be borne by the Respondent and the 3 Contemnors jointly and severally.” 28.In Harrison & 3 others (Suing as the promoters of the proposed Kenya Musicians Union) v Registrar of Trade Unions; Kenya Union of Entertainment and Music Industry Employees [2024] KEELRC 1520 (KLR), where the court held that the Respondent was in contempt of its orders. It therefore convicted her of contempt of court and imposed a custodial sentence of three (3) months’ imprisonment. In the alternative, the Court directed that she personally pay a fine of Kshs. 200,000. Further, the Court granted liberty to the Appellants to initiate additional contempt proceedings should the Respondent’s continued refusal to register their Trade Union persist. 29.Considering the pleadings, written submissions and oral submissions, the court hereby gives the following orders:a.The Respondents, the court retaliates, are in contempt of court proceedings as they have not complied with the Judgment of the courtb.The Respondents including:i.Governor of Bomet Prof. Hillary Barchokii.County Secretary of Bomet Simon Lang’atiii.County Executive Committee Member in charge of Finance- Miss Milca C. Ronoiv.Chairperson of Public Service, Bomet County- Eng. Alexander Ngenov.CEO of Public Service Board, Bomet County- Miss Emmy Chesangvi.Retired HR Manager Mr. Erick Ronovii.County Public Board Members, who are David Tuei, Isaiah Byegon, Paul Kirui, Cicilia Ngetich, and Millicent Soi, are all convicted for contempt of court and sentenced to one (1) month imprisonment.c.The Contemnors to pay the grievants pending salaries, benefits and emoluments and other benefits due and payable to the grievants and to comply with the orders per the Judgement of Honourable Justice D. Nderitu delivered on 29th February 2024, within 14 days herein.d.The OCS Bomet to execure the above orders and have the Respondents arrested right away and put in prison. 30.The Claimant will have the costs of the application. Orders accordingly DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAKURU THIS 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.ANNA NGIBUINI MWAUREJUDGEOrderIn view of the declaration of measures restricting Court operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of the directions issued by His Lordship, the Chief Justice on 15th March 2020 and subsequent directions of 21st April 2020 that judgments and rulings shall be delivered through video conferencing or via email. They have waived compliance with Order 21 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires that all judgments and rulings be pronounced in open Court. In permitting this course, this Court has been guided by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution which requires the Court to eschew undue technicalities in delivering justice, the right of access to justice guaranteed to every person under Article 48 of the Constitution and the provisions of Section 1B of the Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya) which impose on this Court the duty of the Court, inter alia, to use suitable technology to enhance the overriding objective which is to facilitate just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of civil disputes.A signed copy will be availed to each party upon payment of Court fees.