Maritim v Principals Secretary State Department for Correction Services & 4 others (Judicial Review 4 of 2020) [2020] KEELRC 23 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court found a Principal Secretary guilty of ignoring a court order, but chose not to jail her, urging the parties to settle instead.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the respondent was in contempt of the order of 9.3.2020
Contempt established; the respondent was aware of the order, admitted non-compliance, and did not seek review or appeal
The court applied a threefold threshold: proof of personal service or knowledge, proof of violation, and proof the violation was deliberate. Counsel for the respondent was present when the ruling was delivered, which suffices for knowledge; the respondent admitted the order was not complied with; and having made no application for review or variation, the respondent merely ignored the order, establishing wilfulness.
Whether the contemnor should be committed to civil jail
Sentencing deferred to allow the parties to record the proposed consent judgment
Commitment to civil jail must be exercised as a last resort with utmost care. The court took the respondent's explanation (the applicant had missed crucial training areas and his class had graduated) and the proposed consent judgment as mitigating factors, and deferred sentencing to allow a consent judgment adopting readmission at the next recruitment.
Whether the respondent should be declared unfit to hold public office
Declaration declined for lack of pleaded particulars and substantive pleadings
The applicant did not set out the particulars of the alleged violated constitutional rights or the manner of violation. The declaration sought is substantive relief with far-reaching consequences and must be sought through substantive pleadings enabling the court to investigate the allegations before pronouncing itself.
Legal principles established
#- Knowledge of a court order supersedes proof of personal service for contempt purposes
- A party who knows of a court order cannot disobey it on the belief it is invalid; the proper course is to seek its discharge, review or variation
- Court orders are compulsive and peremptory and must be obeyed regardless of the status of the party
Court orders
#- 1.The application is allowed to the extent that Mrs. Zainab Hussein, Principal Secretary State Department for Correctional Services, is cited for contempt of the Court Order dated 9.3.2020.
- 2.Sentencing of the contemnor is deferred to give the parties a chance to consider the proposed consent judgment.
- 3.The matter to be mentioned on a date to be agreed between counsel for the two sides.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Contempt jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court under the law applicable in England as at the time the proceedings are instituted (English Civil Procedure (Amendment No.2) Rules 2012, Rule 81.5 and 81.8)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maritim v Principals Secretary State Department for Correction Services & 4 others (Judicial Review 4 of 2020) [2020] KEELRC 23 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Judicial Review Application dated 24.6.2020 (arising from JR suit with leave granted 20.2.2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/23/eng@2020-12-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.