AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherNotice of Motion dated 29th March 2017 (petition number not stated in the ruling)· [2024] KEELRC 2173 (KLR)
Ngeno & 35 others v Kericho County Government & 6 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition 3 of 2016) [2024] KEELRC 2173 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#This ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Wasilwa J) deals with a Notice of Motion dated 29th March 2017 brought by the Petitioners/Applicants under section 5(1) of the Judicature Act and Order 52(3) of the Supreme Court Practice Rules of England. The Applicants sought orders that the 2nd Respondent be summoned to show cause why he should not be committed to civil jail for six months for contempt, or alternatively pay a fine, for disobeying the court's judgment and order of 10th February 2017, which directed the absorption of the Petitioners as Youth Polytechnic instructors in Job Group 'H' (with contractual or lower-level placement for four Petitioners) and awarded costs of Kshs 100,000. The Applicants, supported by the affidavit of Ronald Langat, asserted that although the 2nd Respondent was served, no action was taken to implement the orders. The Respondents opposed the application through a replying affidavit sworn by Joel K. Bett, the County Secretary and Head of Public Service Board of Kericho County, asserting full compliance - the Petitioners had been absorbed and issued with absorption letters - with only payment of advocates' costs outstanding due to the advocates' failure to provide IFMIS details, and that the 2nd Respondent had in fact suggested settling the matter by consent. Considering the rival averments, the court held that since this was an application for show cause in which the Respondents averred compliance, the application for show cause was merited and the Respondents would be given an opportunity to demonstrate compliance with the judgment and order of 10th February 2017. Costs were awarded in the cause. No contempt finding was made and no committal ordered. The ruling was delivered virtually on 30th July 2024.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether the 2nd Respondent is in contempt of the orders of 10th February 2017
Holding
No finding of contempt was made; instead the Respondents were to be given an opportunity to demonstrate compliance through the show-cause process
Reasoning
The court reviewed the averments of both parties. The Applicants asserted that the orders absorbing the Petitioners as Youth Polytechnic instructors and awarding costs had not been implemented despite service. The Respondents, through the affidavit of Joel K. Bett, asserted full compliance, with only the payment of advocates' costs outstanding due to the advocates' failure to provide IFMIS details. Given the asserted compliance, the court held the show-cause application merited so compliance could be demonstrated.
p. 2
Legal principles established
#- Where an application for show cause in contempt proceedings is met with an assertion of compliance, the proper course is to give the Respondents an opportunity to demonstrate compliance with the court's judgment and order
Court orders
#- 1.The application for show cause is merited and the Respondents are to be given an opportunity to demonstrate their compliance with the court's judgment and order of 10th February 2017
- 2.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act and Order 52(3) of the Supreme Court Practice Rules of England (contempt of court)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ngeno & 35 others v Kericho County Government & 6 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition 3 of 2016) [2024] KEELRC 2173 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Notice of Motion dated 29th March 2017 (petition number not stated in the ruling). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2173/eng@2024-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.