Njiru v Veterinary Medicines Directorate & 5 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E219 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1676 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court dismissed a contempt claim, ruling that actions falling outside the exact wording of a court order do not breach it.
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 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents are in contempt of the court order dated 30th December 2024
- 2.Whether the Petitioner concealed material facts in obtaining the ex-parte orders of 30th December 2024 (raised by the 3rd Respondent)
- 3.Whether the Respondents should be punished for contempt by fine or civil jail
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondents' acts (redeployment letter of 5th January 2025, decline of secondment renewal, change of office locks, allowing an Acting CEO to run the office) constituted contempt of the order of 30th December 2024
No contempt; the order suspended only the ongoing disciplinary process and did not touch redeployment, office access or the appointment of an Acting CEO
The court reviewed the exact orders issued on 30th December 2024 by Hon. J Nzei, which suspended the show cause letter and all letters relating to the ongoing disciplinary process. The court held that the issues of the applicant being locked out of office and an Acting CEO being appointed were never pronounced upon. Since contempt requires breach of a clear and unambiguous order, and the impugned actions fell outside the order's scope, contempt did not arise and the application was dismissed.
Whether the Petitioner concealed material facts in obtaining the ex-parte orders (raised by the 3rd Respondent)
Not determined; the court disposed of the matter on the contempt question without making a finding on material non-disclosure
The 3rd Respondent argued that the Petitioner's secondment had expired and its renewal was unapproved, and relied on Republic v Kenya School of Law Ex Parte Kithinji Maseka Mbijiwe on concealment. The court did not expressly rule on this issue, basing its disposition solely on the finding that contempt did not arise because the impugned acts fell outside the order of 30th December 2024.
Legal principles established
#- Contempt cannot be found where the conduct complained of falls outside the scope of the clear and unambiguous order allegedly breached; the alleged contemnor's acts must relate to what the court actually ordered or forbade
- An alleged contemptuous act that the court did not pronounce upon in its orders cannot ground a finding of contempt
Court orders
#- 1.The application for contempt is dismissed for lack of merit
- 2.Costs in the petition
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, including section 20(7) on contempt penalties (invoked by the Applicant); original employment and labour jurisdiction
Relief refused
#Order citing the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents for contempt of the court order dated 30th December 2024
The order of 30th December 2024 suspended only the disciplinary process; the redeployment, change of office locks and appointment of an Acting CEO were not matters the court had pronounced upon, so no clear and unambiguous order was breached
Order allowing the Petitioner to break into her office and OCS Spring Valley police assistance
Follows the dismissal of the contempt application; the lockout was not an act the court's prior order restrained
Sentence of Kshs 5,000,000 fine or two years civil jail under section 20(7) of the Employment & Labour Relations Court Act
Contempt was not established, so no sentencing followed
Costs
Costs in the petition
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.
From the application dated 27/12/24 the issue before court was on the ongoing disciplinary process that the applicant was facing then. The orders of court granted stay of the disciplinary process.
It is however noteworthy that the issues of the applicant being locked out of office and an Ag CEO being appointed are not issues that this court pronounced itself upon.
It is therefore my finding that the issue of contempt of court does not arise as against the action/ omission of the respondent and therefore, the application for contempt is found without merit and is dismissed accordingly. Costs in the petition.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently dates the orders relied upon, variously referring to 30th December 2024 and 30/12/25
Typographical inconsistency in the dates the Petitioner claims to have been served with the notice of mandatory compliance
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njiru v Veterinary Medicines Directorate & 5 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E219 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1676 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1676/eng@2025-06-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.