[2018] KEELRC 310 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 310 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to prove that there was a valid contract between the respondent and Abyssinia Iron & Steel Limited at the time the court orders were served. Without evidence of an ongoing employment relationship, the respondent could not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 310 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kenya Engineering Workers’ Union; Respondent: Jokali Handling Services Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 18 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
DO Ogal, MN Nduma
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Redundancy Procedure, Union Dues, Status Quo Orders, Employment Contracts, Fair Labour Practice
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Contempt of Court Redundancy Procedure Union Dues Status Quo Orders Employment Contracts Fair Labour Practice

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

Parties

Kenya Engineering Workers’ Union

Applicant

Jokali Handling Services Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was in contempt of court orders regarding redundancy and union dues.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent had a valid employment relationship with the applicant's members at the time of service of the court orders.
  3. 3 Whether the orders of the court could be enforced against the respondent after expiry of its contract with Abyssinia Iron & Steel Limited.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to prove that there was a valid contract between the respondent and Abyssinia Iron & Steel Limited at the time the court orders were served. Without evidence of an ongoing employment relationship, the respondent could not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the orders regarding redundancy and union dues. The court emphasized that contempt requires clear proof of both service of the order and the respondent's ability to comply. Since the contract had expired and no extension was proven, the orders could not be enforced against the respondent, and the application for contempt was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for contempt is dismissed on grounds that no contempt has been proved by the claimant/applicant.
  • There shall be no orders for costs.