Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment

Kioko v Technical University of Kenya & another (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E173 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1647 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
4 June 2025
HWHELLEN WASILWA
1,713 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

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 2nd Respondent/Applicant, a trade union, filed a Notice of Motion dated 30th January 2025 seeking stay of the sentencing of its officials for contempt, review of the court's ruling of 22nd January 2025 to a finding of no contempt, and costs. The union argued that its officials lacked authority to reinstate the Petitioner to her position as National Vice Chairperson because the Annual Delegates Conference, exercising the union's sole implementation mandate, had voted her out in August 2024, and that reinstatement was impractical given members' disgruntlement and her arrears of union dues. The Petitioner/Respondent opposed, asserting continued disobedience of the court's orders and contending that the Secretary General, who runs the union and controls the ADC agenda, engineered the ratification of her expulsion in defiance of orders restraining expulsion. The court framed three issues: its mandate to review the 22nd January 2025 ruling; whether the July 2024 ruling barred expulsion in perpetuity; and the practicality of reinstatement. It rejected the union's claim of helplessness over the Delegates Conference, holding that the conference is an organ of the union and cannot act outside it, and found the assertion untenable and in contempt of the court's orders. The review did not arise and no ground justified delaying sentencing. The application was dismissed with costs on 4th June 2025.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.whether this court has the mandate to review its ruling dated 22nd January 2025
  2. 2.whether the totality of the ruling of 26th July 2024 injuncted the Respondent from expelling the Petitioner in perpetuity
  3. 3.whether it is practical for the Petitioner to be reinstated

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court should review its 22nd January 2025 contempt ruling and stay sentencing

Holding

The application for review and stay of sentencing was declined; the 2nd Respondent was properly found in contempt.

Reasoning

The court held that the 2nd Respondent could not claim lack of capacity to comply because the National Delegates Conference is an organ of the union itself; delegates cannot act outside the union's organs. The orders of 26th July 2024 restraining expulsion were binding and served. No ground for review or stay was advanced, so sentencing would proceed.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A union cannot disclaim responsibility for the decisions of its own organs, such as the Annual Delegates Conference, which are part of the union's structures.
  • Contempt of court proceedings exist to safeguard the rule of law in the administration of justice.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application seeking stay of the sentencing of the contemnor is declined/dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Petitioner/Respondent

The bench

#

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

HW
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (jurisdiction to review its judgments, awards, orders and decrees)

Relief refused

#

Stay of sentencing of the contemnor pending hearing and determination of the application

No reason was presented that justified delaying sentencing for contempt

p. 4

Review of the ruling of 22nd January 2025 to a finding that the 2nd Respondent is not in contempt

The review does not arise; the National Delegates Conference is an organ of the 2nd Respondent, so it cannot plead helplessness over its decisions

p. 4

Costs

Costs of the application awarded to the Petitioner/Respondent (application dismissed 'with 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.

I therefore decline to allow the applicant then seeking stay of the sentencing of the contemnor herein with costs.
p. 4Final orders - stay of sentencing refused
The assertion that the 2nd respondent is helpless over the activities of the national delegates conference is found untenable and in contempt of this court's orders.
p. 4Union cannot plead helplessness over its own organ's decision
Indeed the contention by the applicant is laughable because the National Delegate's conference is an organ of the 2nd respondent union. No delegates can call a conference outside the 2nd respondent's organ.
p. 4Corporate attribution of union organs

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment inconsistently dates the ruling granting restraining orders, referring to both '26th July 2024' and '27th July 2024' and also to a 'ruling of 26th May 2024' in submissions.

minor

The case number of the petition/application is not stated anywhere in the judgment.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kioko v Technical University of Kenya & another (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E173 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1647 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1647/eng@2025-06-04

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