Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedApplication dated 19th June, 2023 (arising from Petition determined by judgment of 25th January, 2022)

Ado & another v Mandera Water & Sewerage Company Limited & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E150 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 2590 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
25 October 2024
1,874 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled you cannot jail officials for contempt over a court-ordered payment until the exact amount owed is calculated and they refuse to pay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi, delivered virtually on 25th October 2024 by Abuodha Nelson Jorum, Presiding Judge-Appeals Division, determined the Applicants' application dated 19th June 2023 seeking leave to issue notices to show cause against the 1st Respondent's board directors and the 2nd Respondent, former CEO Abdikadir Tache Mohamed, and their committal to civil jail for six months or, alternatively, a fine of Kshs 10,000,000/= each for disobedience of the judgment of 25th January 2022, which had upheld the Applicants as board members and directed payment of their allowances and benefits for their term. The Applicants asserted valid judgment, decree and service, and contended the Respondents defied the decree. The Respondents denied disobedience, stating they were ready and willing to pay, but contended the amounts must be computed under the Public Finance Management Act, SRC guidelines of 16th April 2014 and Government Circular MSPS.2/1A VOLIII/1A(119) of 2nd August 2013, computing the total due at Kshs 666,550/= as against the Applicants' demand of Kshs 3,028,000/= in allowances. The court held that since the judgment did not quantify the sums and the parties had not agreed on computation, and the Respondents showed willingness to pay without dishonesty, contempt or committal could not issue. The application was found premature and unmerited and was dismissed with no orders as to costs. The parties were directed to compute the payable allowances within thirty days and file a consent for adoption as a court order, failing which each party to file its own computation; mention set for 16th December 2024 to confirm compliance.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.whether notice to show cause should issue to the 1st respondent's board of directors Bare Ali Adan, Amina Osman Muslima, Mohamed Ali Shuria and Saadia Mohamed Kulow and the 2nd Respondent Abdikadir Tache Mohamed to show cause why they should not be ordered committed to civil jail for failure to obey the court orders in the Judgment of 25th January,2022

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether contempt/committal to civil jail could issue where the judgment did not quantify the amount payable and parties had not agreed on computation

Holding

The application was premature and unmerited; committal cannot issue until the amount payable is clear and refusal to pay demonstrated

Reasoning

The judgment of 25th January 2022 directed payment of allowances and benefits without fixing a figure. The parties never filed a consent on the amount. Only the taxed costs of Kshs 231,550/= were certain. The Respondents acknowledged willingness to pay subject to lawful computation under the Public Finance Management Act, SRC guidelines and Government Circular. Without a clear amount and demonstrated refusal, contempt or committal cannot issue.

p. 3
02

Whether the Respondents displayed the dishonesty or fraudulently requisite for committal to civil jail

Holding

No dishonesty was found; the 1st Respondent, as a public body spending taxpayers' money, could only pay once sums were ascertained per the applicable guidelines

Reasoning

The court applied the principle that only a dishonest or fraudulent debtor is liable to arrest and committal. The 1st Respondent, being a public body funded by taxpayers, must be accountable and can only pay sums ascertained under the PFM Act, SRC guidelines and Government Circular. Absence of dishonesty defeated the committal prayer.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A person is not liable to be committed to civil jail for inability to pay a debt, but a dishonest and fraudulent debtor may be arrested and committed
  • Arrest and committal under sections 38 and 40 of the Civil Procedure Act is constitutional provided there is strict adherence to the law
  • Contempt/committal cannot issue where the decretal amount is unascertained and the judgment debtor is willing to pay once computation is lawfully done

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Applicants' application dated June 19, 2023 is dismissed
  2. 2.Parties directed to compute the allowances and benefits payable to the Applicants as per the Public Finance Management Act, the Salaries and Remuneration Commission guidelines dated 16th April 2014 and Government Circular MSPS.2/1A VOLIII/1A(119) dated 2nd August 2013 within thirty (30) days and file the consent in court for adoption as an order of the court
  3. 3.In the event of inability to agree, each party to independently file their computation for the Court to determine the correct computation
  4. 4.No orders as to costs
  5. 5.Matter to be mentioned on 16th of December, 2024 to confirm compliance

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 159(2)(b) & (e) and 162(2)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya; sections 12 and 13 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act

Relief refused

#

Order compelling the named board directors and the 2nd Respondent to appear and show cause why they should not be committed to civil jail for six months or fined Kshs 10,000,000/= each

Application found premature; the decretal amount was not yet ascertained and the Respondents were willing to pay once computation was done per the law

p. 3

Costs

No orders as to costs

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.

In conclusion the Applicants' application dated June 19, 2023 is found premature, unmerited and is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.
p. 4disposition - dismissal of contempt application
The Parties must therefore first agree on the right computations before the Respondents can be held in contempt.
p. 4precondition to contempt finding
until the amount is clear and the Respondents demonstrated refusal to pay despite being called upon to do so, an order for contempt of court or committal to civil jail cannot issue.
p. 3test for committal on unquantified decree
A person is not liable to be committed to civil jail for inability to pay a debt but a dishonest and fraudulent debtor is liable to be punished by way of arrest and committal.
p. 4law on committal to civil jail (as cited)

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Paragraph 3 of the application's provisions cites 'Section 3991)(2)(g) of the High Court(Organization and Administration) Act 2015', an apparently typographical provision reference

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ado & another v Mandera Water & Sewerage Company Limited & 2 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E150 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 2590 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Application dated 19th June, 2023 (arising from Petition determined by judgment of 25th January, 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2590/eng@2024-10-25

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.