[2020] KEELRC 608 (KLR)

[2020] KEELRC 608 (KLR)

The court found that there was no evidence that the 2nd to 16th Contemnors were personally served with the court orders, as they had been working from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Applicant did not provide proof of service. Therefore, they could not be held in contempt. However, the 1st Contemnor, as...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELRC 608 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Richard Kipkoech Aiyabe; Respondent: Agricultural Development Corporation; Respondent: Mohammed Bulle; Respondent: Hon. Benjamin Cheboi; Respondent: Hon. John O. K’Obado; Respondent: Hon. Hassan Osman; Respondent: Hon. Martin Ogindo; Respondent: Dr. Gladys K. Ngao; Respondent: Mrs. Tabitha M. Maugi; Respondent: Ms. Jean Njiru; Respondent: Hon. Paul K. Chebor; Respondent: Hon. Roba Sharu Duba; Respondent: Hon. Peter Chemuigut; Respondent: Mrs. Elizabeth Shungula; Respondent: Mr. Kello Harsame; Respondent: Dr. Geoffrey Mutai; Respondent: Chrislogus Mutai; Respondent: Ms. Lilian Koskei
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 46 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
Outcome
1st Contemnor found in contempt of court; 2nd to 16th Contemnors not guilty; costs in the cause.
Judges
HS Wasilwa
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Injunctive Relief, Service of Process, Employment Termination
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Injunctive Relief Service of Process Employment Termination

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Kipkoech Aiyabe

Applicant

Agricultural Development Corporation

Respondent

Mohammed Bulle

Respondent

Hon. Benjamin Cheboi

Respondent

Hon. John O. K’Obado

Respondent

Hon. Hassan Osman

Respondent

Hon. Martin Ogindo

Respondent

Dr. Gladys K. Ngao

Respondent

Mrs. Tabitha M. Maugi

Respondent

Ms. Jean Njiru

Respondent

Hon. Paul K. Chebor

Respondent

Hon. Roba Sharu Duba

Respondent

Hon. Peter Chemuigut

Respondent

Mrs. Elizabeth Shungula

Respondent

Mr. Kello Harsame

Respondent

Dr. Geoffrey Mutai

Respondent

Chrislogus Mutai

Respondent

Ms. Lilian Koskei

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Ruling on Contempt Application

  1. 1 Whether the 1st to 16th Contemnors were served with and disobeyed the court orders issued on 31/3/2020.
  2. 2 Whether the 1st Contemnor, as Acting Managing Director, was in contempt of court for flouting the orders.
  3. 3 Whether the orders sought by the Applicant are enforceable given the circumstances of the case.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no evidence that the 2nd to 16th Contemnors were personally served with the court orders, as they had been working from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Applicant did not provide proof of service. Therefore, they could not be held in contempt. However, the 1st Contemnor, as Acting Managing Director of the Respondent, was aware of the court orders by virtue of his position and the service effected on the Respondent. Despite denying personal service, the court held that his knowledge and continued flouting of the orders constituted contempt. The court thus found the 1st Contemnor guilty of contempt in his capacity as Acting Managing Director, while...

Court Disposition

1st Contemnor found in contempt of court; 2nd to 16th Contemnors not guilty; costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The 1st Contemnor is found guilty of contempt of court in his capacity as Acting Managing Director of the Respondent and is to be punished accordingly.
  • The 2nd to 16th Contemnors are found not guilty of contempt as cited.