[2015] KEELRC 520 (KLR)
The court found that the Respondent, Imarika Sacco, had not fully complied with the interim order for reinstatement of the Claimant, as there was doubt whether the Claimant had been restored to the payroll with full benefits and previous duties. The CEO, being responsible for the day-to-day running of the Sacco,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEELRC 520 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Moses Sammy Ponda; Respondent: Imarika Sacco
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 556 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Contempt Application / Ruling on Contempt Application Prior to Hearing of Main Claim
- Outcome
- Respondent adjudged in contempt of court; fine imposed; compliance with reinstatement order required before further audience; costs awarded to Claimant.
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Interim Reinstatement, Employer Obligations, Court Orders Compliance
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Moses Sammy Ponda
Applicant
Imarika Sacco
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Ruling on Contempt Application Prior to Hearing of Main Claim
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Respondent complied with the court order for interim reinstatement of the Claimant.
- 2 Whether the Respondent and its CEO are in contempt of court for non-compliance with the reinstatement order.
- 3 What sanctions should be imposed for contempt, if established.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Respondent, Imarika Sacco, had not fully complied with the interim order for reinstatement of the Claimant, as there was doubt whether the Claimant had been restored to the payroll with full benefits and previous duties. The CEO, being responsible for the day-to-day running of the Sacco, bore the duty to ensure compliance. The Respondent's own submissions acknowledged possible contempt and attempts to purge it, but these were insufficient. The court therefore adjudged the Respondent to be in contempt of court, imposed a fine, and ordered full compliance with the reinstatement order before further audience would be granted. The court emphasized that the interim...
Court Disposition
Respondent adjudged in contempt of court; fine imposed; compliance with reinstatement order required before further audience; costs awarded to Claimant.
Orders
- The Respondent Imarika Sacco is adjudged to be in contempt of court.
- The Respondent shall pay a fine of Kshs. 100,000.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT AT MOMBASA
CAUSE NUMBER 556 OF 2014
BETWEEN
MOSES SAMMY PONDA…………….…………………………………………..………. CLAIMANT
VERSUS
IMARIKA SACCO………………………………………………………………………RESPONDENT
RULING
The Court has evaluated the submissions by the respective Advocates, and the evidence of Mr. Daniel Safari, given in his affidavit as well as orally in Court today.
The CEO is responsible for the day to day running of his Sacco. He bears the responsibility in ensuring compliance with the orders of the Court. Reinstatement of the Claimant required he is reinstated to the pay roll with full benefits and allocated all duties he was performing previously. This does not seem to have taken place. Ms Opolo candidly submits contempt may have occurred, but that the CEO is not responsible, and that the CEO made attempts at purging the contempt, in his letter of 8th July 2015.
This may well be so. The Court notes however, the letter of 8th July 2015 was authored by the CEO on the same date he swore his Replying Affidavit.
In all, there is considerable doubt that the Respondent has fully complied with the order for reinstatement, or at the very least, purged contempt which it acknowledges may have occurred.
This said, the Court notes reinstatement of the Claimant was on interim basis, and the main Claim relating to his dismissal is yet to be heard. It is imperative that the main Claim is heard expeditiously, and the orders of interim reinstatement are not made to appear like the final pronouncement of the Court on the matter. In disposing of the application for contempt, the Court makes the following Orders:-
The Respondent Imarika Sacco is adjudged to be in contempt of Court.
The Respondent shall pay a fine of Kshs. 100,000, and the CEO shall ensure the Claimant is reinstated in full, before the Respondent can be granted further audience in this Court.
Parties shall endeavour to set down the main claim for hearing.
Costs of Kshs. 15,000 for the application on contempt to be paid to the Claimant.
Dated and delivered at Mombasa this 23rd day of September 2015
James Rika
Judge