https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2364

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI JUDICIAL REVIEW AND LABOUR RIGHTS JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION NO. E032 OF 2021 AYUB GIKONYO MATHENGE…………………………………………………………………….........1ST APPLICANT MBUSIRO CHRISTINE DOROTHY.. ………………………………………………………………...2ND APPLICANT ROBINSON KIPKORIR CHERUIYOT………………………………………………………………3RD APPLICANT TERESIA WANJUKI MURIITHI ………………………………………………………………………4TH APPLICANT VERSUS INSPECTOR- GENERAL OF POLICE……………………………………………………………..1ST RESPONDENT NATIONAL POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION ………………………………………………2NDRESPONDENT THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL …………………………………………………………….…3RD RESPONDENT CORAM Before Lady Justice Jemimah Keli C/A Otieno RULING 1. The applicants/Decree Holders by way of Notice of Motion dated 4th July 2024 and amended on the 22nd May 2026 brought under Articles 159, & 165[3] of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and Sections 3 & 5 of the Judicature Act, Section 1А, 1B, ЗA and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and all the other enabling provisions of the law sought for the following orders- 3A.ТНAT pending hearing and determination of this application, the Inspector General of Police and the Chairman of the National Police Service Commission, the 2nd Respondent herein be summoned to court to show why they should not be cited for contempt of court disobeying the Decree and Order of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) at Nairobi (Mathews Nduma Nderi, J) delivered in a Judgement in Judicial Review Application No. E302 of 2021: Ayub Gikonyo Mathenge & 2 Others vs Inspector Gen General of Police and 2 Others. 4A. THAT the 1st Respondent, the Inspector General of Police and the Chairman of the 2nd Respondent, the National Police Service Commission be and are hereby compelled to produce to Court evidence of full compliance with the orders of the Court in respect of all the affected officers as per the list attached to the pleadings in Nairobi ELRC Judicial Review Application No. E302 of 2021: Ayub Gikonyo Mathenge & 2 Others vs Inspector General 5. 6 of Police and 2 Others. 5. THAT pending hearing and determination of this Application, this Honourable Court do issue an Order restraining the Respondents from any acts of retaliation against the 4th Applicant herein transfer redeployment suspension disciplinary action, withholding promotion or any other adverse instructions arising from or in any way connected to the institution of this Application. 6A. THAT in default of Prayers 3A, 4A & 5 above, the 1st Respondent herein, the Inspector General of Police and the Chairman of the 2nd Respondent herein, the National Police Service Commission be cited for contempt of Court for disobeying the Orders issued by this Honourable Court on 29th September 2022 6B.THAT in default of prayers 3A, 4A & 5 above, sequestration and/or attachment do issue for the properties of the Inspector General of Police and the Chairman of the 2nd Respondent herein and the same be attached for the amount to be determined by this Honourable Court. 7A.THAT in default of prayers 3A, 4A & 5 above, warrants of arrest do issue against the Inspector General of Police and the Chairman of the 2nd Respondent herein and they be committed to jail for six months or any other sanction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and appropriate. 8. THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to grant any other orders as it may deem fit to further the ends of justice. 9. THAT the costs of and occasioned by the contempt of Court proceedings herein be met by the Respondents, and in default thereof execution to issue forthwith 1. Grounds of the application 2. THAT this Court is clothed with wide and unfettered discretion to grant the orders sought. 3. THAT on 29th September 2022, the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Hon. Mathews Nduma Nderi) rendered a Judgement in this matter where the Court inter alia declared that the decision to reduce the Group "J" to Job Group "F" was unconstitutional and declared that the unilateral decision to reduce graduate officers' pay from Job Group ‘J' to Job Group 'F' was arbitrary, unreasonable and unlawful. 4. THAT the Judgement and Decree of the Court was served on all the parties via email, and all the parties are aware of the orders of the Court by virtue of post-judgment proceedings to monitor enforcement of the orders of the Court. 5. THAT subsequently the Respondents herein effected the Court Order by reinstating the Applicants herein as well a majority of the Officers they were representing. However, the Respondents did not reinstate all the affected officers and neither did they pay the arrears for all the affected officers. 6. THAT particularly, the 4th intended Applicant has not been reinstated to the appropriate job group and her salary arrears have also not been paid. 7. THAT therefore, the Respondents herein have willfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders of this Honourable Court by failing to reinstate the 4th Intended Applicant to her previous job group and by failing to pay her salary arrears. 8. THAT as a result of the 1st & 2nd Respondents contemptuous acts, the 4th Intended Applicant is facing untold suffering. Notably, she is getting a meagre salary which sometimes runs to the negative and is unable to fend for her daily needs and that of her family. 9. THAT if this matter is not certified urgent and the orders sought herein granted, the 4th Intended Applicant being one of the affected officers shall continue getting meagre salaries sometimes running to the negative rendering her unable to sustain her livelihood. 10. THAT there is also a risk that the 4th Intended Applicant may be subjected to victimization, reprisal or subjected to irregular disciplinary process on account of raising valid concerns regarding her employment and the implementation of a Court Order in her favour. 11. THAT from the foregoing regarding it is in the interests of justice and no unfair prejudice whatsoever shall be visited upon the Respondents if the orders sought herein are granted. 12. THAT in the event that the orders sought herein are denied, the Applicant will be greatly prejudiced as illustrated in the preceding paragraphs and lead to an irreversible situation that cannot be compensated by an award for damages. damages. 1. THAT the instant application has been brought without unreasonable delay and it is in the interest of justice and for the overarching purpose of constitutional integrity that this Court grants the orders sought herein. 2. The application was supported by the affidavit of the 4th Applicant dated 22nd May 2026, who annexed as "TWN-1" copies of her pay slips for the months of February, March, and April, and a letter dated 8th February 2026 confirming her promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police. At Page 92, there was a copy of a redacted pay slip of a colleague officer who was part of the cohort whose salary was readjusted following the judgment of the court delivered by Hon. Nduma Nderi, J [as he then was], on 29th September 2026. 3. The 1st respondent, represented by Ms Orege of State Law, informed the court that they relied on the affidavit dated 29th July 2024 and 22nd May 2026. The 2nd respondent, represented by Ms Opiyo, informed the court that they relied on the replying affidavit dated 29th May 2024. 4. The 1st and 3rd respondents argued that, in accordance with the judgment, the 1st respondent organised a professional training course for 1048 graduate police officers whose salaries had been reduced. The training commenced on 18th November 2022 and continued until 25th May 2023 at various police training colleges. They stated that the 4th applicant had been selected to attend the course. Despite being informed of her selection, she chose not to attend the special promotional course, willfully. Instead, she decided to remain with her deployment by the UN in South Sudan for 12 months until 17th June 2023, even though her peers in the same mission attended the training. The officers who participated in the training were promoted to Job Group J. In 2025, the 4th applicant was given the opportunity to attend training, successfully completed the course, and was promoted to the rank of inspector, effective 30th January 2026, as indicated in the job group letter dated 22nd May 2026. The 1st and 3rd respondents contended that salary increases could only take effect from the date of promotion. She has since received arrears reflected in the May 2026 payslip. 5. The 2nd respondent denied being in contempt of court orders. The 2nd respondent stated that a promotional course was initiated. The 4th applicant was informed by the immediate commander of the training session, but she claimed the notice was short and requested a chance in the next training. The 2nd respondent stated that the payroll is managed by the 1st respondent and had written to it through several correspondences to reinstate the 4th applicant to the payroll and pay areas. They have complied with the court orders on their part. 6. The applicants, through Khatete Advocate acting on behalf of Kanjama SC, asserted in their rejoinder that the court's judgment was not conditional. They stated that the issue was about demotion and that the court had reinstated the applicants without any conditions. The 4th applicant did not receive arrangements to travel for the training from the mission. The 1st respondent did not explain the discrimination, as all other officers were paid arrears from the date of their demotion. The applicants contended that the 2nd respondent had a vested interest in the matter. Decision 1. The applicant filed written submissions after the hearing. 2. The court discerned that the facts of the application and the supporting affidavit dated 22nd May 2026 by Teresia Wanjuki Muriithi, the 4th applicant, were not controverted. The court further notes that the judgment of the court was not conditional. The legislature has granted the power to punish for contempt to the court in section 5 of the Judicature Act-‘5. Jurisdiction of Superior Courts Every superior court shall have power to—(a)punish for contempt of court on the face of the court;(b)punish for contempt of court; and(c)uphold the dignity and authority of subordinate courts.’ I have found willful disobedience of the court Judgment by the respondents with respect to the 4th Applicant. I upheld the position of the court in Canadian Metal Co. Ltd -Vs- Canatian Broadcasting Corp (No. 2) (1975) 48 D.L.R (30) cited in Republic v Principal Secretary, Ministry of Defence Ex parte George Kariuki Waithaka [2019] KEHC 10383 (KLR)that:- "To allow court orders to be disobeyed would be to trend the road toward anarchy. If orders of the court can be treated with disrespect, the whole administration of justice is brought into scorn.... If the remedies that the courts grant to correct wrongs can be ignored, then there will be nothing left for each person but to take the Law into his own hands, loss of respect for the courts will quickly result into the distraction of our society" The application is merited. I hold the 1st and 2nd respondents jointly and severally in contempt of court for failing to satisfy the court's judgment concerning the 4th applicant. The respondent has complied with the judgment regarding all applicants except the 4th, and reasons were provided. The reasons for excluding the 4th applicant are not supported by the court's judgment, which I find was unconditional. 1. Regarding the merit of the orders sought in the application, I find that the order to attach the personal properties of the respondents concerning the decretal sum is inconsistent with the law on recovery against the government, being the Government Proceedings Act. 2. In the upshot, having held the respondents to be in contempt, the court orders them to comply with the judgment dated 29th September 2022 regarding the 4th applicant unconditionally within 30 days of this order. In default, the 1st respondent and the Chairman of the 2nd respondent must appear in court on 29th September 2026 to show cause why they should not be sentenced to six months' imprisonment for contempt of court. 3. It is so Ordered. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2026. JEMIMAH KELI, JUDGE IN THE PRESENCE OF: Court Assistant: Otieno Applicant – Khatete h/b Kanjama SC Respondents- absent