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

Manyonge, Wanyama & Associates LLP v County Government of Kisumu & 3 others (Judicial Review E038 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1781 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya at Kisumu
18 June 2025
NMNzioki wa Makau
335 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court has summoned three top Kisumu County finance officials to explain why they should not be jailed or punished for ignoring a court order to pay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first-instance contempt application before the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu, delivered by Nzioki wa Makau, J at Kisii on 18th June 2025. The Applicant sought issuance of summons to the person holding the office of Chief Officer Finance of the County Government of Kisumu, the County Executive Committee Member for Finance, and the County Secretary, requiring them to appear physically in court and show cause why they should not be cited for contempt of mandamus orders issued by the same court on 6th February 2025. The Court noted that the application was not seriously resisted, but held that because the liberty of subjects is at stake, it had to consider the implications of granting the summons. It reaffirmed that refusal to comply with a court order undermines the authority and dignity of the court and is not countenanced, and that the three officials are alleged to have deliberately refused to comply with its order. The Court accordingly issued summons directing the three officials to appear on 26th June 2025 before the Hon. Mr. Justice Jacob Gakeri at 9.00am to show cause why they should not be held in contempt. Service is to be effected by the Applicant, personal service preferred, with service by email and a copy to the County Attorney of Kisumu County permitted if the alleged contemnors are elusive. The Applicant was awarded the costs of the motion. No statutes or case authorities were cited in the judgment.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the Court should issue summons to the Chief Officer Finance, the CECM for Finance and the County Secretary of Kisumu County to appear and show cause why they should not be cited for contempt of the mandamus orders of 6th February 2025

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether contempt summons should issue against county officials for non-compliance with a mandamus order

Holding

The Court issued summons directing the three county officials to appear and show cause why they should not be held in contempt, noting the application was not seriously resisted but subjecting the request to scrutiny because liberty of subjects is at stake.

Reasoning

The Court observed that the contempt application was not seriously resisted. It nonetheless held that because the liberty of subjects is at stake, it had to consider the implications of granting the summons. It reiterated that refusal to comply with a court order undermines the authority and dignity of the court and is not countenanced, found the officials alleged to have deliberately refused to comply, and issued show-cause summons returnable before Justice Jacob Gakeri.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • Refusal to comply with a court order undermines the authority and dignity of the court and will not be countenanced; where liberty of subjects is at stake the court must still consider the implications of issuing contempt summons.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Summons issued to the Chief Officer Finance County Government of Kisumu, the County Executive Committee Member for Finance County Government of Kisumu and the County Secretary County Government of Kisumu
  2. 2.The 3 officials to appear on 26th June 2025 before the Hon. Mr. Justice Jacob Gakeri at 9.00am to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of the orders of this court
  3. 3.Summons to be served by the Applicant; personal service preferred, but if the alleged contemnors are elusive, service by email with an additional copy sent to the County Attorney Kisumu County Government
  4. 4.The Applicant to have costs of the motion

The bench

#

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

NM
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent powers of the Employment and Labour Relations Court to enforce its own orders and cite for contempt (order of mandamus issued by the ELRC at Kisumu on 6th February 2025)

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.

The refusal to comply with an order of the Court is conduct that undermines the authority and dignity of the court and is not countenanced by courts.
p. 1Contempt of court - authority and dignity of the court
The Court therefore summons the a. Chief Oficer Finance County Government of Kisumu, b. County Executive Committee Member for Finance County Government of Kisumu and c. County Secretary County Government of Kisumu
p. 1Disposition - issuance of summons
The 3 oficial are appear on 26th June 2025 before the Hon. Mr. Justice Jacob Gakeri at 9.00am to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of the orders of this court.
p. 2Final orders - return date and show-cause direction
The Applicant will have costs of the motion before court. Orders accordingly.
p. 2Costs

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment does not state the case number, the name of the Applicant or the respondents by name; parties are identified only by office held.

minor

Typographical errors in the judgment, including 'ofice' for 'office' and 'The 3 oficial are appear' in the disposition.

minor

The judgment is dated and delivered at Kisii although the orders concern the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu, and the show-cause appearance is returnable before Hon. Mr. Justice Jacob Gakeri, who is not the judge who delivered this ruling.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Manyonge, Wanyama & Associates LLP v County Government of Kisumu & 3 others (Judicial Review E038 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1781 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1781/eng@2025-06-18

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