BENARD NYANYUKI NYAKINA AND 301 OTHERS V POLYSACK LIMITED [2012] KEELRC 33 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court found a company director in contempt for defying orders to reinstate workers, confirming that ignoring court orders carries consequences even mid-dispute.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Respondent Diamond Lalji was served with the orders of 20th September 2012 and 5th October 2012
- 2.Whether the Respondent disregarded the court orders and therefore holds the court in contempt
Key legal issues
#Definition and scope of contempt of court
Contempt is a disregard of or disobedience to orders of a judicial body; any act at variance with a court order remains contemptuous even if the perpetrator considers it legitimate.
The court adopted Black's Law Dictionary definition of contempt and reasoned that disobedience which lowers the standing of the court is contemptuous. It stressed that a perpetrator's belief in the legitimacy of the act is irrelevant where the act contravenes an existing order, laying the foundation for finding the respondent in contempt of the orders of 20th September and 5th October 2012.
Whether the respondent was served with the orders and the contempt application
Service was duly effected; the respondent was personally served but declined to sign, and thereafter acted through advocates who had instructions to appear.
The affidavit of service showed the process server personally met the respondent and served the application and penal notice, which he declined to sign or stamp. The replying affidavit, sworn by the Human Resource Manager, did not deny service. Counsel appearing for the respondent confirmed instructions. The court therefore rejected the argument that service was not proved.
Whether the respondent disobeyed the orders of 20th September 2012 and 5th October 2012
Yes. By treating the purportedly dismissed workers as dismissed and sending terminal benefits to the Thika Labour Office, the respondent defied the order that claimants resume duty immediately.
The ruling of 5th October 2012 ordered the claimants to resume duty with immediate effect and the parties to maintain industrial peace. The respondent instead sent terminal benefits to the labour office, proceeding on the presumption of dismissal, and the pay slips showed absent days for workers expected to be on duty. The court found no interpretation of the order was needed.
Legal principles established
#- Wilful disobedience of a court order is punishable as contempt, and even if a party believes an injunction was improperly obtained or too wide, that is no excuse for disobeying it; the remedy is to vary or discharge it.
- An act which brings the standing of the court lower through disobedience of its orders is contemptuous even if the perpetrator believes it legitimate in the circumstances.
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent Diamond Lalji is cited for contempt of the court orders made on 20th September 2012 and 5th October 2012
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 14 of the Labour Institutions Act 2007, Sections 12 and 13 of the Industrial Court Act 2011 and Section 5 of the Judicature Act
Relief refused
#Commitment of Diamond Lalji to jail for six months
The court found the respondent in contempt and cited him but did not, in the final orders, impose the committal sentence sought
Reinstatement of the 69 dismissed claimants and payment of salary arrears and terminal dues
The court did not in the final orders direct reinstatement or payment; the substantive issues were left for the main suit
Costs of the application borne by the contemnors
No costs order appears in the final orders of the court
Costs
No costs order made in the judgment
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
I accordingly make a finding that indeed the Respondent Diamond Lalji is in contempt of this court's orders and he is hereby cited for contempt.
Willful disobedience to an order of the Court is punishable as a contempt of Court, and I feel no doubt that such disobedience may properly be described as being illegal.
That act may be believed legitimate by the perpetrator given a set of prevailing circumstances, however if it is at variance to an order of court, then it still remains contemptuous.
The parties are ordered to maintain industrial peace pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
Issues in the judgment
#The relief sought included committal to jail for six months and reinstatement with payment of arrears, but the final orders only cite the respondent for contempt without addressing committal, reinstatement or costs, leaving the disposition incomplete relative to the notice of motion.
The judgment contains inconsistent dates in the notice of motion - dismissal allegedly on 19th October 2012 in prayer 2 but 19th September 2012 in the salary claim in the same prayer.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "BENARD NYANYUKI NYAKINA AND 301 OTHERS V POLYSACK LIMITED [2012] KEELRC 33 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2012). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2012/33/eng@2012-11-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.