[2018] KEELRC 2342 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 2342 (KLR)

The court found that the Teachers Service Commission had demonstrated compliance with the court's order to replace 16 teachers in Koibatek Sub-County by recruiting and posting more than the required number of teachers within the specified period. The applicant failed to specify the individual within the 1st...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 2342 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Robert Cheruiyot; Respondent: Teachers Service Commission; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 57 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Contempt
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
HS Wasilwa
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Mandamus Orders, Teacher Deployment, Discrimination, Public Interest, Compliance With Court Orders
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Contempt of Court Mandamus Orders Teacher Deployment Discrimination Public Interest Compliance With Court Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Cheruiyot

Applicant

Teachers Service Commission

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Contempt

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Respondent omitted or did any act in contravention of the Court’s orders dated 20th August 2015.
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of the Teachers Service Commission should be held in contempt of court for failing to replace 16 teachers in Koibatek Sub-County as ordered.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Teachers Service Commission had demonstrated compliance with the court's order to replace 16 teachers in Koibatek Sub-County by recruiting and posting more than the required number of teachers within the specified period. The applicant failed to specify the individual within the 1st Respondent's organization to be cited for contempt, nor did he provide evidence of personal service or awareness of the court order by the alleged contemnor. In the absence of clear identification and service, and given the Respondent's demonstrated compliance, the court held that the threshold for contempt was not met. Consequently, the application for contempt was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 5th January 2017 is dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.