https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1885

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI** **CAUSE NO. E828 OF 2025** **KENYA UNION OF SPECIAL AND PROFESSIONAL GUARDS………………………………………….…CLAIMANT/APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **G4S KENYA LIMITED..…………..……….…………..............RESPONDENT** **AND** **LAURENCE OKELLO………………………………………1ST CONTEMNOR** **HELGAH KIMANANI…………………………………….2ND CONTEMNOR** **RULING** 1. Before Court is the Claimant/Applicant’s Notice of Motion application dated 3rd March, 2026 brought pursuant to Articles 41, 47 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, Section 48 (3) of the Labour Relations Act, Section 5 of the Judicature Act, the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act. The Applicant seeks orders **THAT**: - 2. Spent 3. This Honourable Court be pleased to cite the Respondent, the 1st Contemnor, and 2nd Contemnor, and/or any responsible officer for contempt of Court for willful disobedience of this Court Orders issued on 18th December 2025. 4. The Respondent’s Managing Director, the 1st Contemnor herein, and Respondent’s Human Resource Director, the 2nd Contemnor herein be summoned to personally appear before this Honourable Court to show cause why they should not be committed to civil jail for contempt. 5. This Honourable Court be pleased to impose appropriate sanctions including fine, civil jail, attachment of property or any other punitive orders deemed fit. 6. This Court be pleased to compel the Respondent to immediately and fully comply with order (a), order (b), and order (c) of the Ruling of this Court delivered on 18th December 2025. 7. Costs of this Application be borne by the Respondent. 8. The application is supported by grounds on its face thereof, and the supporting affidavit and Supplementary affidavit of **Samson Omechi Ong’era,** sworn on 3rd March, 2026, and 20th April, 2026. 9. The Applicant avers that on 18th December 2025, this Court determined the Claimant Union's Notice of Motion dated 25th August 2025 and ordered the Respondent to implement all duly served Form S notices by commencing the deduction and remittance of union dues in accordance with Section 48(3) of the Labour Relations Act, refrain from intimidating or interfering with employees who had joined the Claimant Union, and account for and remit all union dues withheld from the effective date of service of the Form S notices. 10. The Applicant states that the Respondent was represented by counsel during the delivery of the ruling on 18th December 2025 and was therefore fully aware of the Court's orders. It is further contended that the orders are clear, unambiguous, binding, and remain valid and enforceable, there being no stay of execution, review, or appeal. 11. The Applicant further avers that, despite having knowledge of the orders and the ability to comply, the Respondent has only selectively implemented the Form S notices and has unlawfully reduced or removed some employees from union membership, contrary to the Form S notices submitted and the Court's orders. 12. It is states that the Respondent has deliberately targeted certain branches or departments to weaken the Union, resulting in only partial and calculated compliance with the Court's directives. 1. The Applicant further asserts that, despite being aware of the Court's ruling, the Respondent has intimidated, harassed, coerced, and interfered with employees who joined the Union in contravention of the Court's orders. The Applicant further avers that the Respondent has failed to account for and remit previously withheld union dues as ordered by the Court. 2. It is the Applicant’s assertion that the Respondent, together with the 1st and 2nd Contemnors, have deliberately and willfully disobeyed the Court's orders issued on 18th December 2025 in a calculated attempt to undermine the authority of the Court and obstruct the administration of justice. 3. It further contends that, despite repeated demands, warnings, and opportunities to comply, the Respondent and the Contemnors have remained defiant. 1. The Applicant therefore urges the Court to cite and punish them for contempt, arguing that failure to do so will encourage continued disregard of lawful court orders, which are binding and must be obeyed. 2. The Respondent opposed the application vide a Replying affidavit sworn by **Helgah Kimanani** on 25th March, 2026. The Respondent contends that it has fully complied with the Court orders issued on 18th December 2025 and that neither the Respondent, its Managing Director, nor the deponent has willfully or deliberately disobeyed any court order. The Respondent further states that it has taken specific steps to ensure compliance with the Court's directives. 3. The Respondent states that, following the Court ruling delivered on 18th December 2025, it was required to implement duly served Form S notices by deducting and remitting union dues, refrain from intimidating or interfering with employees who joined the Claimant union, and account for and remit all union dues withheld from the effective date of service of the Form S notices. 4. She further avers that, as the officer responsible for labour relations compliance, she took all necessary steps to ensure the lawful and accurate implementation of the Court orders, beginning with receipt of the Form S notices and engagement with the Claimant. 5. The Respondent states that it received Form S check-off notices from the Claimant in six batches between February 2025 and January 2026, comprising a total of 2,222 entries. It avers further that Form S notices constitute lawful instructions by individual employees authorizing the deduction and remittance of union dues under Section 19 of the Employment Act and Section 48 of the Labour Relations Act. 6. The Respondent further explains that it undertook a verification exercise to confirm the employment status of the listed employees, eliminate duplicate entries, and identify those eligible for lawful deductions from its workforce of over 10,100 employees nationwide. 7. The Respondent states that, after verifying the 2,222 Form S notices, only eligible employees were included for union dues deductions, while others were excluded due to legitimate reasons such as duplication, non-employment, termination, nil pay, or statutory ineligibility. 8. It further asserts that it engaged the Claimant through meetings and correspondence to review and reconcile the verified lists, agreed to commence deductions in the January 2026 payroll, and explained the reasons for excluding certain names when the Claimant objected to the provisional verification results. 9. The Respondent states that, after completing its verification exercise, only 1,067 of the 2,222 names submitted were confirmed as employees, and 794 were found eligible for union dues deductions after excluding those who were duplicate entries, former employees, not on payroll, on nil pay, or otherwise ineligible. 10. It avers that union dues for the 794 eligible employees were deducted and remitted from the January 2026 payroll. The Respondent further maintains that it continued to engage the Claimant through correspondence and meetings, and that on 10th February 2026, it forwarded the complete verification analysis together with proof of payment of the January 2026 union dues. 11. The Respondent states that it provided the Claimant with the full original schedule of 2,222 employees, the verified list of employees, and the final list of 794 employees in respect of whom union dues had been deducted and remitted in the January 2026 payroll. 12. The Respondent asserts that it complied with the Court's orders by remitting union dues for verified employees from the January and February 2026 payrolls and by accounting for and paying arrears of withheld union dues amounting to Kshs. 778,500. It maintains that the Claimant was furnished with the relevant payment records, employee schedules, and supporting documentation demonstrating compliance. 13. The Respondent denies any willful or deliberate disobedience of the Court's orders, asserting that any delay in full compliance resulted solely from the complexity of verifying over 10,000 employees and not from contempt. 14. It further states that some employees voluntarily withdrew from or repudiated their union membership, making further deductions unlawful, and denies any intimidation or inducement of such withdrawals. 15. The Respondent maintains that all communications with employees were lawful, factual, and made in good faith, while agency fee deductions were effected pursuant to the applicable legal notice. 16. It contends that it took reasonable and continuous steps to comply with the Court's orders through consultations with the Claimant, verification of employees, deduction and remittance of union dues, and the provision of comprehensive verification records. 17. Accordingly, the Respondent asserts that the contempt application is without merit and should be dismissed with costs. 18. In a supplementary affidavit by the Applicant dated 20th April, 2026, the Applicant maintains that the Respondent deliberately failed to comply with the Court's clear and binding orders by delaying and only partially implementing union dues deductions. It further contends that the Respondent's claim of full compliance is inconsistent with its own admission that implementation commenced in January 2026 after consultative meetings, demonstrating willful disobedience of the Court's orders. 19. The Applicant admits the Respondent's receipt of the Form S notices but emphasizes that, at the time the Court delivered its ruling on 18th December 2025, only the batches already before the Court were relevant. The Applicant disputes the Respondent's reliance on a verification exercise, arguing that it has no basis under Section 48 of the Labour Relations Act, and that this argument was previously rejected by the Court, and is unsupported by evidence or any disclosed methodology. 20. The Applicant further contends that the Respondent's reference to verifying a workforce of over 10,000 employees is misleading since only 2,222 Form S notices were submitted. It denies that the parties agreed to defer implementation of the Court's orders, maintaining that no consent, court approved variation, or lawful agreement existed and that informal meetings could not suspend or vary binding court orders. 21. The Applicant contends that the Respondent unlawfully relied on an unauthorized verification exercise to delay compliance, exclude employees from union dues deductions, and reduce the number of eligible employees without lawful justification. It is further argued that the Respondent's conduct, including its failure to account for the excluded employees and its cancellation of engagement with the Managing Director, demonstrates a deliberate attempt to frustrate and evade compliance with the Court's orders. 22. The Applicant maintains that the Respondent willfully disobeyed the Court's orders by failing to comply immediately and unconditionally, without seeking any review, variation, or stay. It asserts further that the Respondent's alleged compliance with the order to account for and remit union dues was an afterthought prompted by the contempt proceedings, was incomplete, and has failed to account for the full amount due. 1. The Applicant further disputes the Respondent's reliance on a verification exercise, employee terminations, withdrawals from the Union, and missing records, arguing that these assertions are unsupported by evidence and cannot justify non-compliance. 1. The Applicant also alleges that the Respondent unlawfully shifted liability for arrears to employees, failed to process resignations in accordance with the law, intimidated union members, and exposed employees to double deductions. 2. The Applicant contends that the Respondent acted in bad faith by providing inconsistent information regarding the status of employees, citing instances where employees reported as untraceable were later said to have resigned. 3. The Applicant further argues that the Respondent's reliance on verification exercises, meetings, and phased implementation was merely a pretext to avoid complying with the clear orders, which required immediate implementation of duly executed Form S notices. 4. Consequently, the Applicant maintains that the Respondent and the 1st and 2nd Contemnors willfully disobeyed the Court's orders, that their replying affidavits lack merit and probative value, and urges the Court to find them in contempt and allow the Notice of Motion in its entirety. 5. Both parties filed submissions and have been duly considered. **Analysis and Determination** 1. The sole question for determination is whether the Respondent, its Managing Director, and the Human Resource Director are guilty of contempt of court. 2. The principles governing civil contempt are now well settled. In ***Mutitika v Baharini Farm Ltd [1985] KECA 60 (KLR),*** the Court of Appeal held that contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in nature and the standard of proof is higher than on a balance of probabilities though not beyond reasonable doubt. 3. The elements that an applicant must establish to prove contempt of court were succinctly set out in ***Kristen Carla Burchell v Barry Grant Burchell***, ***Eastern Cape Division Case No 364 of 2005,*** and subsequently adopted by Kenyan courts. In ***Samuel M. N. Mweru & Others v National Land Commission & 2 Others*** ***[2020] KEHC 9233 (KLR),*** it was held that to succeed in contempt proceedings, an applicant must establish that the terms of the order were clear and unambiguous, that the Respondent had knowledge of the orders, that the Respondent had the ability to comply, and that the Respondent deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the order. 4. Further, in ***Econet Wireless Kenya Ltd v Minister for Information & Communication of Kenya & Another [2005] KEHC 1767 (KLR)***, the Court emphasized that court orders are not issued in vain and every person against whom an order is made is obligated to obey it unless and until it is set aside. 5. There is no dispute that this Court delivered a ruling on 18th December 2025, directing the Respondent to implement all duly served Form S notices by deducting and remitting union dues in accordance with Section 48(3) of the Labour Relations Act, to refrain from intimidating or interfering with employees who had joined the Claimant Union, and to account for and remit withheld union dues. 6. The Respondent expressly admits that it was represented during the delivery of the ruling and was fully aware of the orders of the Court. It then follows that the first two ingredients of contempt are well satisfied. 7. The dispute concerns whether the Respondent deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the subject orders. The Applicant argues that the Respondent ignored the orders by conducting an unlawful verification exercise, delaying implementation until January 2026, excluding numerous employees, and only partially complying after commencement of the instant contempt proceedings. 8. Conversely, the Respondent has placed before the Court evidence explaining the steps undertaken after the ruling that resulted in the orders said to have been violated. It states that it received 2,222 Form S notices submitted in several batches, undertook verification to ascertain which employees were still in employment and legally eligible for deductions, reconciled the lists with the Union, commenced deductions in the January 2026 payroll, continued deductions thereafter, and remitted arrears amounting to Kshs. 778,500, and supplied the Applicant with the payment schedules together with proof of payment. 9. The Court appreciates that contempt jurisdiction is not intended to determine whether a party has perfectly complied with every aspect of a judgment or whether its interpretation of the judgment is ultimately correct. Rather, the Court must determine whether the evidence demonstrates a deliberate, intentional, and contumacious refusal to obey the Court's orders. 10. Although the Applicant disputes the legality of the verification exercise, the Respondent has provided a detailed explanation for the exclusions, including duplicate entries, employees no longer in service, employees on nil pay, persons not on payroll, and employees who had become legally ineligible for deductions. 11. The Respondent has also exhibited conduct inconsistent with deliberate defiance, having held consultative meetings with the Applicant/Union, communicated the outcome of the verification exercise, commenced deductions, remitted union dues for verified employees, and paid arrears. Such conduct, in my view, demonstrates substantial efforts towards compliance rather than an outright refusal to obey the orders of the Court. 12. The Applicant further contends that employees continued to be intimidated and coerced by the Respondent. Apart from the averments contained in the affidavits, no independent evidence, such as complaints from affected employees, correspondence, witness affidavits, or documentary proof, has been produced to demonstrate that the Respondent deliberately violated the order restraining intimidation. 13. In whole, the evidence before the Court, in my considered view, reveals a genuine dispute regarding the implementation of the Court orders and the eligibility of particular employees for the deduction of union dues, rather than wilful disobedience. 14. In the premise, the Notice of Motion dated 3rd March 2026 does not satisfy the threshold for contempt and is dismissed. 15. In order to give full effect to the orders of the Court, the Respondent is hereby directed to within thirty (30) days, furnish the Claimant Union with a comprehensive reconciliation identifying all employees covered by the Form S notices, those in respect of whom deductions have been effected, those excluded together with the reasons and supporting employment records, and a full account of all union dues deducted and remitted pursuant to the ruling of 18th December 2025. 16. I make no orders on costs. 17. It is so ordered. **SIGNED, DELIVERED, AND DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026** **C. N. BAARI** **JUDGE** **Appearance:** Mr. Ong’era present for the Claimant/Applicant Ms. Saina h/b Makori for the Respondent Ms. Esther S - Court Assistant