[2023] KEELRC 1471 (KLR)

[2023] KEELRC 1471 (KLR)

The court found that there was no sufficient evidence provided by the applicants to demonstrate that the respondents had filled the four reserved positions in violation of the interim orders. Contempt is a serious accusation and must be premised on clear and sufficient evidence, which was lacking in this case. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELRC 1471 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Godfrey Kimanzi Zakayo; Applicant: Geoffrey Mulinge Changangu; Applicant: Enock Kimanzi Nguthu; Applicant: Joseph Kimanga Mutua; Respondent: Kitui County Public Service Board; Respondent: County Government of Kitui; Respondent: The Governor of the County Government of Kitui; Respondent: The Kitui County Assembly
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition E212 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
Outcome
application for contempt dismissed
Judges
NJ Abuodha
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Interim Orders, Employment Termination, Public Service Employment
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Contempt of Court Interim Orders Employment Termination Public Service Employment

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Godfrey Kimanzi Zakayo

Applicant

Geoffrey Mulinge Changangu

Applicant

Enock Kimanzi Nguthu

Applicant

Joseph Kimanga Mutua

Applicant

Kitui County Public Service Board

Respondent

County Government of Kitui

Respondent

The Governor of the County Government of Kitui

Respondent

The Kitui County Assembly

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Ruling on Contempt Application

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were in contempt of court orders by filling the four reserved positions contrary to interim orders.
  2. 2 Whether sufficient evidence was provided to prove contempt of court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no sufficient evidence provided by the applicants to demonstrate that the respondents had filled the four reserved positions in violation of the interim orders. Contempt is a serious accusation and must be premised on clear and sufficient evidence, which was lacking in this case. The court therefore found the application for contempt unmerited and declined to delve further into the matter, emphasizing the need to expedite the substantive hearing of the petition regarding the employment status of the petitioners.

Court Disposition

application for contempt dismissed

Orders

  • The application for contempt is unmerited and is dismissed.
  • The matter should be fast-tracked for substantive hearing and determination.