Council of Governors v Kenya Medical Practitioners Pharmacists and Dentists Union [2016] KEELRC 119 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court found the doctors' union and its officials guilty of contempt for continuing a strike after a court order suspended it.
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 Respondents and their officials were aware of the Court order of 1/12/2016 suspending the strike notice
- 2.Whether the Respondents and their officials disobeyed the Court order of 1/12/2016
- 3.Whether the Respondents and their officials should be punished for contempt of court
Key legal issues
#Whether deliberate disobedience of a court order amounts to contempt attracting punishment
The Court found the 1st Respondent and its officials guilty of contempt of the order of 1/12/2016 suspending the strike notice and held they must be punished accordingly.
The Court traced the chronology: the order of 1/12/2016 was served by substituted service on 7/12/2016, officials were summoned and attended court on 13/12/2016, and the import of the order was explained to them with a direction to cease the strike. Yet by 19/12/2016 the strike had not ceased, with counsel arguing it had commenced before the order was received. The Court held the excuse could not withstand since the order was to stop the strike. Awareness plus blatant refusal or ignoring of the order established contempt.
The rationale and principles governing contempt of court
Contempt protects the authority, dignity and supremacy of the Court and the rule of law, and disobedience is no excuse even where the order is believed irregular or void.
The Court relied on established case law to state that courts will not condone deliberate disobedience of their orders and will deal firmly with proved contemnors. Citing Johnson v. Grant, it emphasised that contempt offends not the personal dignity of the judiciary or private rights of litigants but the fundamental supremacy of the law. The obligation to obey an order of a competent court is unqualified and extends to cases where the affected person believes the order irregular or void.
Legal principles established
#- Every person against whom a court order is made must obey it unless and until it is discharged, even where they believe the order to be irregular or void.
- Contempt proceedings safeguard the supremacy of the law and the dignity of the Court, not the private interests of litigants.
Court orders
#- 1.A finding that the 1st Respondent and its officials are guilty of contempt of the Court order of 1/12/2016
- 2.That the 1st Respondent and its officials must be punished accordingly for contempt of the Court order of 1/12/2016
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- The Court's powers to punish contempt of its own orders under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and the law on contempt of court
- Consolidated with
- Cause No. 2479 of 2016
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.
This Court finds that indeed the 1st Repondent and its officials are all guilty of contempt of this Courts order of 1/12/2016 and must therefore be punished accordingly.
The uncompromising nature of this obligation is shown by the fact that it extends to cases where persons affected by an order believe it to be irregular or void
It is the plan and unqualified obligation of every person against or in respect of whom an order is made by a Court of competent jurisdiction to obey it unless and until that order is discharged.
the contempt will not be against an individual litigant or the Judge as the case may be but against the unparalleled dignity of the Court
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment records that a finding of guilt was made and that the contemnors 'must therefore be punished accordingly', but does not set out the specific sentence or sanction imposed (e.g. fine or imprisonment).
The names of the Applicants and the Interested Party are not fully stated in the body of the judgment; they are only identifiable from the counsel appearances (Moi Teaching & Referral Hospital; Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Health).
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Council of Governors v Kenya Medical Practitioners Pharmacists and Dentists Union [2016] KEELRC 119 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause No. 2406 of 2016 (consolidated with Cause No. 2479 of 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/119/eng@2016-12-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.