https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1381

Moloi v Standard Chartered Bank Limited; Ngari & 4 others (Contemnor) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E005 of 2023) [2026] KEELRC 1381 (KLR) (22 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1381 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru Employment and Labour Relations Cause E005 of 2023 AN Mwaure, J May 22, 2026 Between Stephen Tajeu Moloi Claimant and Standard Chartered Bank Limited Respondent and Kariuki Ngari Contemnor Joshua Machii Contemnor Alfred Okoth Onyango Contemnor Evans Munyori Contemnor Patricia Mbugua Contemnor Ruling Introduction 1.The Claimant/Applicants filed a Notice of Motion dated 27th January 2026 under Certificate of urgency seeking the following orders that: 1.Spent 2.This Honourable Court do find that the Contemnor herein, Kariuki Ngari, Joshua Machii, Alfred Okoth Onyango, Evans Munyori, and Patricia Mbugua being the Chief Executive Officers-Kenya, Senior Branch Manager (Regional Manager), Branch Manager-Nakuru, Head of Human Resource, and Head of Legal respectively of the Respondents are in contempt of court for disobedience of the order this Honourable court issued on 26th September 2024. 3.Upon grant of prayers 1 and 2 above, the Honourable Court do impose a fine and/or a penalty of Kshs.10,000,000.00 (Kenya Shillings Ten Million) or any other amount that this Honourable Court deems sufficient against each of the said contemnors (Kariuki Ngari, Joshua Machii, Alfred Okoth Onyango, Evans Munyori, And Patricia Mbugua ) and in default of payment of such fine all movable and immovable assets of the said contemnors including land and buildings be attached and sold or attach and/or freeze their personal bank accounts in execution of this order to satisfy the penalty for contempt. 4.Upon grant of prayers 1 and 2 above, the Court do issue an order that the above mentioned Kariuki Ngari, Joshua Machii, Alfred Okoth Onyango, Evans Munyori, And Patricia Mbugua be committed to civil jail for a period of 6 months and to cease holding public offices. 5.This Honourable Court do issue an order that the above-mentioned Kariuki Ngari, Joshua Machii, Alfred Okoth Onyango, Evans Munyori, And Patricia Mbugua do purge their contempt within 48 hours of the date hereof by settling Claimant/Applicant’s outstanding salary and benefits with effect from the date of the alleged resignation (20th August 2022) to January 2026 amounting to Kshs.4,086,820.1 and reinstating him to his position in the same capacity or in a re-engaged capacity without loss of his salary and benefits. 6.The costs of this Application. 2.The application is brought to be expressed under Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act Cap 8 of the Laws of Kenya, Part 81 of the English Civil Procedure Rules, section 12 (3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, Articles 162(2) (a) and Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, and all other enabling provisions of the law. Claimant/Applicant’s supporting affidavit 3.The application is supported by the affidavit of the Claimant/Applicant dated even date as the application. 4.The Claimant/Applicant avers that in a judgment delivered on 26th September 2024, Lady Justice Hellen Wasilwa found that he had not resigned from employment and was entitled to continue serving as an employee of the Respondent in the same or re‑engaged capacity without loss of salary and benefits from 20th August 2022, unless lawfully terminated for just cause. 5.Dissatisfied, the Claimant/Applicant avers that the Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal and sought typed proceedings, thereafter obtaining stay orders from the Court of Appeal on 18th December 2024 in Civil Application No. Nakuru No. E095 of 2024. 6.However, despite notification on 16th January 2025 that proceedings were ready, the Claimant/Applicant avers that the Respondent failed to prosecute its appeal. 7.Consequently, the Claimant/Applicant avers that he filed Civil Application No. E052 of 2025, and on 14th January 2026 the Court of Appeal struck out the Respondent’s Notice of Appeal, thereby discharging the stay orders. 8.The Claimant/Applicant avers that the judgment of this Court thus remains valid, entitling the Claimant to reinstatement or re‑engagement with full salary and benefits. 9.The Claimant/Applicant avers that the calculated dues amounted to Kshs.4,086,820.10/= from September 2022 to January 2026 and demanded payment together with reinstatement. The Respondent, however, failed to comply, instead purporting by letter dated 19th January 2026 to send the Claimant on indefinite annual leave, contrary to section 28(1) of the Employment Act, which requires definite and measurable leave. This was followed by a demand letter dated 22nd January 2026 requiring compliance within 21 days, failing which contempt proceedings would ensue. 10.In response, the Claimant/Applicant avers that by a letter dated 23rd January 2026, the Respondent arrogantly claimed the judgment contained no executable monetary award and that reinstatement required managerial consideration, further asserting incapacity to absorb the Claimant. 11.The Claimant/Applicant avers that the Respondent and Contemnors have thus treated the judgment and decree of this Honourable Court as optional, adopting a simplistic interpretation to evade compliance. Such conduct amounts to blatant disobedience of lawful court orders, undermines the rule of law, and risks rendering judicial authority a mockery. 12.The Claimant/Applicant avers that the continued defiance calls for the sanction of this Court, lest its dignity and authority be eroded and the Claimant continue to suffer irreparable harm thus the application to be allowed as prayed. Respondent’s replying affidavit 13.The Respondent opposed the application vide a replying affidavit sworn by Grace Kanyiri, the Respondent’s Head of Employee Relations East Africa dated 10th February 2026. 14.The Respondent avers that the Claimant was reinstated to the payroll and paid January 2026 salary in compliance with the Employment and Labour Relations Court judgment of 26th September 2024, though operational processes for his placement are ongoing. It argues that the judgment did not quantify arrears, hence no enforceable sum exists without a decree and certificate of costs, and that the Claimant’s unilateral computation of dues is improper. 15.The Respondent maintains that contempt proceedings are premature, defective, and incompetent, particularly as they target multiple officers without specific allegations. 16.The Respondent emphasizes good faith compliance, ongoing administrative steps, and the pendency of an urgent application for leave to appeal out of time in the Court of Appeal, urging dismissal of the Claimant’s motion with costs. 17.Parties canvassed the application by way of written submissions. Claimant/Applicant’s submissions 18.The Claimant had filed their submissions dated 17th February 2026 which cannot be cited on the CTS platform nor are they filed as hard copy. 19.The Claimant filed supplementary submissions stating that a judgment is indeed an order of the court under section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act and must be obeyed, rejecting the Respondent’s claim that it is incapable of obedience for lacking a penal notice. The Claimant clarified that contempt proceedings differ from execution of a decree and that the Respondent’s reliance on English Civil Procedure Rules is misplaced, as Kenyan law governs service and recognizes that knowledge of a court order suffices for contempt. 20.The Claimant maintains that the Respondent and its officers were duly served and knowingly disobeyed the judgment. He argues that citing responsible officers for contempt does not amount to lifting the corporate veil but enforces obedience, citing the case of Shimmers Plaza Limited v National Bank of Kenya Ltd [2013] KECA 359 (KLR) and Republic v County Government of Kitui Ex Parte Fairplan Systems Limited [2022] KEHC 930 (KLR) in support of that proposition. 21.Finally, the Claimant urges the court to impose both financial and custodial penalties on the contemnors to uphold judicial authority and deter defiance of lawful orders. Respondents’ submissions 22.The Respondent submitted that the court’s judgment of 26th September 2024 did not expressly direct it or its officers to compute the Claimant’s benefits and salary from 20th August 2022 to January 2026. However, the judgment clearly stated that since the Claimant had not resigned, he was entitled to continue serving as an employee of the Respondent “in the same capacity without loss of benefits with effect from the date of alleged resignation to date.” In essence, the court’s order required continuity of employment and preservation of benefits from the date of the alleged resignation, meaning the Claimant’s salary and benefits should have been maintained throughout that period. 23.The Respondent submitted that the Claimant has not applied to have an order or decree extracted based on the judgment nor has he taken any initiative to have a money decree drawn based on the above pronouncement by the court. 24.The Respondent submitted that the court’s judgment did not specify any monetary award or quantified sum payable to the Claimant. According to the replying affidavit sworn by Grace Kanyiri that, without a decree and certificate of costs tabulating arrears, there is no enforceable amount capable of supporting contempt proceedings. The Respondent contended that the Claimant unlawfully computed alleged dues and sought enforcement through contempt without court determination or mutual agreement. The Respondent emphasized that any dispute over arrears should be resolved through reconciliation or proper court processes, not contempt. Overall, the replying affidavit affirms the Respondent’s willingness to comply with the judgment once lawful quantification and execution procedures under the Civil Procedure Rules are followed. 25.The Respondent submitted that the Claimant’s contempt application is an improper attempt to bypass lawful execution procedures under the Civil Procedure Rules. The Respondent contends that the Claimant is using contempt proceedings to pressure its officials into paying a self‑computed, unapproved sum. It further argued that the application is legally flawed because contempt has been brought against individual officers of a corporate entity without lifting the veil of incorporation, making personal liability untenable. The Respondent cited case of Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers v Fish and Chicken Bar Limited [2022] KEELRC 1288 (KLR) and Katsuri Ltd vs Kapurchand Depar Shah [2016] eKLR in support of that proposition. The Respondent also submitted that the Claimant’s accusation of non‑reinstatement, noting that the Claimant himself admitted being reinstated, as confirmed by Grace Kanyiri’s replying affidavit stating he was restored to the payroll and placed on leave while administrative arrangements were finalized. However, the Respondent clarifies that the judgment did not require automatic placement into a specific role, only reinstatement or re‑engagement in a suitable position, which necessitates internal assessment. 26.The Respondent argued that the contempt application lacks merit because there is no evidence of disobedience to the court’s orders. The Claimant’s concern about being placed on leave is addressed as a lawful administrative measure pending operational arrangements. In Kimanzi v Mwangangi [2023] KECA 86 (KLR), where the Court of Appeal held that sending a reinstated employee on annual leave does not amount to contempt of court. Once reinstated, the employee is subject to the same human resource policies as other staff and cannot claim special treatment or use the court order as a license for self‑entitlement. The court found that if the employee viewed being sent on leave as a rights violation, it should have been pursued through a separate claim, not contempt proceedings. 27.In conclusion, the Respondent affirms its compliance with the judgment of 26th September 2024 by reinstating the Claimant and paying his salary. It argues that any back pay requires a formal decree under Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which the Claimant must obtain. The Respondent maintains that the contempt application is legally flawed, misconceived, and an abuse of court process, urging its dismissal with costs. Analysis and determination 28.The court has considered the application, supporting affidavit, replying affidavit and the submissions on record; The issue for determination is whether:- 1.The application for contempt of court is merited or not against the cited officials. 2.Should the cited officials be sentenced? 29.In Waruhiu v Directline Assurance Company Ltd [2025] KEELRC 925 (KLR) defined contempt of court according to Black’s Law Dictionary as conduct that defies the authority and dignity of a court. It is a disregard of or disobedience to the orders of a judicial body. 30.In Wekesa & 2 others v Munialo [2025] KECA 679 (KLR), the Court of Appeal outlined the elements for contempt of court as follows:a.“the terms of the order (or injunction or undertaking) were clear and unambiguous and were binding on the defendant;b.the defendant had knowledge of or proper notice of the terms of the order;c.the defendant has acted in breach of the terms of the order; and; There are essentially four elements that must be proved to make the case for civil contempt. The applicant must prove to the required standard (in civil contempt cases, which is higher than civil cases) that.d.the defendant's conduct was deliberate.” 31.In this instant case, judgment was delivered on 26th September 2024 in favour of the Claimant directing his reinstatement to his position, payment of his salary, and benefits from the date of the alleged resignation up to the present date. The Respondent asserts compliance and insists they reinstated the Claimant to his position. They state they have continued to pay his salary though they gave him indefinite leave.The fact remains they reinstated him to the payroll. If they intend to keep paying him without performing any duties it is now upon them. But since the judgment of the Honourable Court is that the Claimant was to be reinstated to his position or in a re-engaged capacity without loss of benefits or salary from the date of the alleged resignation and as long as the Respondents have complied with the orders of the court then the court finds no reason to cite the Respondents for contempt. 32.The Honourable Judge however had ordered the Claimant must not loose his benefits or salary from the date of his impugned resignation.Without splitting hairs the court orders the Parties to agree on the amounts due to the Claimant from the date of his alleged resignation to the date of the judgment and the same to be settled without any delay.The court orders the Claimant to continue receiving his monthly salary and benefits as ordered in the judgment. 33.The court would want to see a tidy conclusion of this matter and so will mention the case on 15th July 2026 for progress report. 34.The court orders the Respondent to pay the costs of application. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAKURU THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY, 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. ANNA NGIBUINI MWAUREJUDGE