[2019] KEELRC 782 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 782 (KLR)

The court found that while there was insufficient evidence to establish that the Managing Director, Mr. Pius Chelimo, was personally served with or had knowledge of the court orders, there was clear evidence that the Respondent company was served with the orders and failed to comply. The absence of an affidavit of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 782 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kenya National Private Security Workers Union; Respondent: Lavington Security Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 2045 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
Outcome
Application partially allowed; Respondent company found guilty of contempt; Managing Director not cited for contempt.
Judges
HS Wasilwa
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Union Dues Remittance, Service of Court Orders, Non Compliance With Court Orders
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Union Dues Remittance Service of Court Orders Non Compliance With Court Orders

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

Parties

Kenya National Private Security Workers Union

Applicant

Lavington Security Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Ruling on Contempt Application

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent and/or its Managing Director are in contempt of court orders issued on 15th April 2016 and 24th September 2018.
  2. 2 Whether the Managing Director, Mr. Pius Chelimo, was personally served with or had knowledge of the court orders.
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent company is liable for punishment for disobeying court orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while there was insufficient evidence to establish that the Managing Director, Mr. Pius Chelimo, was personally served with or had knowledge of the court orders, there was clear evidence that the Respondent company was served with the orders and failed to comply. The absence of an affidavit of service or other proof of personal service on the Managing Director precluded a finding of contempt against him individually. However, the Respondent company, having been served and having failed to obey the court's orders regarding remittance of union dues and non-victimization of union members, was found guilty of contempt and held liable for punishment. The court emphasized...

Court Disposition

Application partially allowed; Respondent company found guilty of contempt; Managing Director not cited for contempt.

Orders

  • The Respondent company is found guilty of disobeying the court's orders and is liable for punishment.
  • Costs of the application to be in the cause.