Republic v Public Service Commission & another; Kirinyaga County Government (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review E001 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1485 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nyeri dismissed a union's contempt case, ruling the motion was overtaken by a prior judgment and could not delay an already-decided matter.
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 application has merits (i.e. whether the 2nd Respondent and its officials should be cited for contempt of the orders issued on 27th April 2023 and committed to civil jail)
Key legal issues
#Whether the 2nd Respondent's prosecution of Misc. Application No. 1 of 2021 constituted contempt of the orders of 27th April 2023
No. The judgment of 26th July 2024 in Misc. Application No. 1 of 2021 adopted the 1st Respondent's decision of 3rd March 2021, which was never challenged in the Judicial Review proceedings; the quashed decision was that of 13th October 2021. The court had fully exercised its mandate and the motion was overtaken by events.
The court distinguished the two decisions of the 1st Respondent: the Judicial Review quashed the decision of 13th October 2021, while Misc. Application No. 1 of 2021 concerned the decision of 3rd March 2021, which was never challenged by the Applicant. Having rendered judgment in both matters, the court considered itself functus officio and held the contempt motion to be a delaying tactic that could not succeed.
Legal principles established
#- Contempt proceedings cannot be used to stop prosecution of an application that has already been heard and determined; where a court has rendered judgment and fully exercised its statutory mandate, a contempt motion premised on those proceedings is overtaken by events and an abuse of process.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 22nd November 2024 is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court, including its contempt jurisdiction in respect of its own orders; mention of section 89(1) of the Public Service Commission Act
Relief refused
#Citation of the 2nd Respondent and its officials (Seth Panyako, Stephen Ruteere, Agnes Munderu and Henry Adolwa) for contempt of the orders of 27th April 2023 and committal to civil jail for up to 6 months
The contempt proceedings were not well founded because the Misc. Application No. 1 of 2021 had already been heard and judgment delivered on 26th July 2024 adopting the 1st Respondent's decision of 3rd March 2021, a decision never challenged by the Applicant
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs to the 2nd Respondent
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.
I have no doubt that Misc. Application No.1 of 2021 was heard and judgment entered on 26th July 2024 which essentially adopted the decision of the 1st respondent of 3rd march 2021.
As far as this court is concerned, it has fully exercised its mandate under section 89(1) of the Public Service Commission Act in Misc. Application No.1 of 2021. The court has also rendered its judgment in this Judicial Review suit and the parties know where to go after the judgments.
In view of the foregoing matters, I find that the contempt proceedings against the 2nd respondent are not well founded and must fail. Consequently, the Notice of Motion dated 22nd November 2024, is dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment's opening paragraphs and case title/case number are blank in the record; the identity of the parties must be inferred from the body of the ruling.
Inconsistency in the record as to which decision was quashed: the Applicant says the 1st respondent's decision of 3rd March 2021 was the subject of enforcement, while the court states the Judicial Review challenged the decision of 13th October 2021. The court resolved this by treating the two decisions as distinct.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Public Service Commission & another; Kirinyaga County Government (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review E001 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1485 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (related to ELRC Misc. Application No. 1 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1485/eng@2025-05-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.