Kisii University Council v Kenya Union of Domestic Workers, Hotels, Educational Institutions and Hospital Workers (kudheiha)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal overturned a contempt ruling against Kisii University, confirming contempt charges require near-criminal proof and that only orders actually covering an act can be breached.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Standard of proof in contempt proceedings
Contempt being quasi-criminal, proof must exceed the balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt.
The court adopted Mutitika vs. Baharini Farm Ltd, emphasising that contempt may result in imprisonment, placing it in the realm of criminal character, and requiring strict proof before a party is charged and convicted for disobeying a court order.
Scope of the order of 28th October 2020
The order stayed only the letter dated 1st October 2020 to individual employees; it did not stop the redundancy notice dated 30th September 2020, which the respondent never challenged.
The order of 28th October 2020 was directed at the letter of 1st October 2020 to individual employees. The redundancy notice dated 30th September 2020, served on the union under Section 40(1)(a) of the Employment Act, was acknowledged but not contested and ran its course; the contempt finding therefore had no factual or legal foundation.
Elements to be proved before a contempt finding
The order must be clear and unambiguous, brought to the notice of the charged party with the consequences of breach (penal notice), and knowing and willful disobedience must be shown.
Because the liberty of the citizen is often at stake in contempt proceedings, strict proof of each element is required. On the facts, the breach of a clear order by the appellant was not established to that standard, so the ELRC's finding of direct and blatant contempt could not stand.
Legal principles established
#- Contempt of court is quasi-criminal and requires a standard of proof higher than the balance of probabilities, approaching but not reaching the criminal beyond-reasonable-doubt standard
- Before a party is committed for contempt it must be strictly proved that the order was clear and unambiguous, was brought to the party's notice (with a penal notice) and was knowingly and willfully disobeyed
Court orders
#- 1.Set aside that part of the ruling of the ELRC dated 16th November 2021 allowing the respondent's application dated 6th May 2021
- 2.Dismiss the respondent's application dated 6th May 2021 with costs to the appellant
- 3.The appellant to have the costs of the appeal
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court, Nakuru
- Nakuru ELRC No. E013 of 2021 (ruling); underlying Cause No. E013 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated in the judgment; the appeal lies to the Court of Appeal from the ELRC under Article 164 of the Constitution (the judgment does not invoke a specific provision).
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kisii University Council v Kenya Union of Domestic Workers, Hotels, Educational Institutions and Hospital Workers (kudheiha)", Case Analysis (2026). Appeal from Nakuru ELRC No. E013 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1457/eng@2026-07-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.