Nyarawati v Action Africa Help International (Petition E199 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 370 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a company's Regional Director must personally show why he shouldn't be jailed because the company defied an employment judgment.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether Kamau Githaiga, the Respondent's Regional Director, being an agent of the Respondent, can be cited for contempt on behalf of the Respondent
- 2.Whether leave is required before bringing a contempt application
- 3.Whether the Respondent wilfully breached/disobeyed the judgment of 15 June 2022 requiring payment of decretal sums
Key legal issues
#Whether an agent/manager of a corporate employer may be cited for contempt
Yes. Section 2 of the Employment Act defines an employer to include its agent, foreman, manager or factor; Kamau Githaiga, as Regional Director, is both agent and manager and can be cited for contempt on behalf of the Respondent.
The cases relied on by the Respondent concerned joinder of agents to substantive suits with disclosed principals, not contempt liability. A legal person acts only through human beings and has 'no body or soul to be damned'. The Regional Director identified himself as such in his affidavit, making him a manager under section 2 of the Employment Act, 2007 and thus citable for the corporate employer's contempt.
Whether leave is required before initiating contempt proceedings
No; leave is not a legal requirement before bringing a contempt application.
Following Christine Wangari Chege v Elizabeth Wanjiru Evans and Samuel N. Mweru v National Land Commission, the Court held that after the invalidation of the Contempt of Court Act the prior legal regime (English law and section 5 of the Judicature Act) applies, under which no leave is required.
Whether the Respondent breached the judgment
Yes. The Court found the Respondent in breach of the judgment/contempt of Court.
The Respondent failed to comply with the stay condition of paying Kshs 3,000,000/- within 14 days, prompting a garnishee order that realised only Kshs 2,505,532/-. Normal execution failed and the proclaimed properties were disposed of without contradiction. The explanations based on donor funding and a global economic crisis were unsupported by evidence and were dismissed as hollow excuses.
Legal principles established
#- A legal person's manager or agent within the meaning of the Employment Act can be cited for contempt on behalf of the corporate employer.
- Leave is not a legal requirement before bringing a contempt application.
- After invalidation of the Contempt of Court Act, the applicable regime is the pre-Act law: English law and section 5 of the Judicature Act.
Court orders
#- 1.The Court ordered Kamau Githaiga to appear personally in Court on a date to be given hereinafter to show cause why he should not be committed to civil jail for contempt of Court.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court, enforcement of its own judgment through contempt proceedings; Employment Act, 2007 and section 5 of the Judicature Act
Relief refused
#Immediate committal of Kamau Githaiga to prison for six months
The Court instead directed him to appear personally and show cause why he should not be committed to civil jail; committal was not pronounced at this stage.
Costs
No costs order made on the Motion in the excerpt.
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 the Court's view, and the Court so finds, he is a person who can be cited for contempt on behalf of the Respondent employer.
Leave is not a legal requirement before bringing a contempt application
The Court finds the explanations mere excuses which are not only hollow but bereft of reality.
The Court orders Kamau Githaiga to appear personally in Court on a date to be given hereinafter to show cause why he should not be committed to civil jail for contempt of Court.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently labels the applicant as Petitioner and as Claimant/applicant within the same Motion
The replying affidavit depones that 'the Respondent's Regional Director swore and filed a replying affidavit' while elsewhere the Director is named Kamau Githaiga; the affidavit is anonymous in places, creating ambiguity about identity
The operative orders are limited to a show-cause direction, yet the Motion sought leave and committal; the Court found contempt but did not pronounce final sanction, leaving the Motion partially disposed of
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyarawati v Action Africa Help International (Petition E199 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 370 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/370/eng@2025-02-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.