Mohammed v Teachers Service Commission; Macharia & another (Contemnor) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E070 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2599 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court refused to pause a reinstatement order against the Teachers Service Commission and threw out contempt proceedings filed too early.
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 Respondent's application for stay of execution of the judgment dated 24/10/2024 pending appeal meets the requirements of Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- 2.Whether the 2nd and 3rd Contemnors, Dr Nancy Njeri Macharia and M/s Mollet Sango, wilfully disobeyed the court order of 24th October 2024 and should be committed to civil jail
Key legal issues
#Stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6
The stay application was dismissed as the Respondent failed to demonstrate substantial loss or that the appeal would be rendered nugatory
The court held that reinstatement, if delayed, is defeated by lapse of time under section 12 of the ELRC Act, so failure to implement reinstatement would render the Petitioner's judgment nugatory. The Petitioner had served for over 38 years with only one expired warning and was near retirement, so reinstatement could not cause the Respondent irreparable damage. The Respondent had also not processed the Petitioner's pension, defeating the substantial-loss argument.
Contempt of court for non-compliance with reinstatement order
The contempt application was dismissed as premature, the compliance period having not lapsed when it was filed
The court computed the 14-day compliance period as lapsing on 27/11/2024, and the application filed on 6/11/2024 was therefore premature. Contempt requires explicit intention not to comply, proved to a standard above balance of probability but below beyond reasonable doubt, which could not be shown before the period expired. The stay application nonetheless proved the contemnors were served with the order.
Legal principles established
#- An order for reinstatement if not implemented timeously is defeated by lapse of time under section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2014
- The standard of proof for contempt is above a balance of probability but below beyond reasonable doubt, and disobedience must be explicit and proved by the Applicant
- A judgment must be obeyed unless otherwise stayed or set aside; the prospect of it becoming a precedent is no ground for stay
Court orders
#- 1.The application for contempt of court dated 6/11/2024 is dismissed
- 2.The application for stay of execution dated 6/11/2024 is dismissed
- 3.Each party to bear costs in respect of their applications
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2014; Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the judgment of 24/10/2024 pending appeal
The Applicant failed to satisfy the requirements of Order 42 Rule 6; failure to implement reinstatement would render the Petitioner's judgment nugatory
Citation and committal to civil jail of Dr Nancy Njeri Macharia and M/s Mollet Sango for contempt
The contempt application was filed prematurely, before the compliance period had lapsed, and could not demonstrate blatant disobedience
Costs
Each party to bear costs in respect of their applications.
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 Respondent/Applicant has not satisfied the requirements of order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules accordingly. The application has no merit and is dismissed.
Accordingly, the application by the Petitioner/Applicant lack merit and is dismissed.
Each party to bear costs in respect of their applications.
A judgment must be obeyed unless otherwise stayed or set aside.
the intention not to comply with the order of the court must be explicit and proved by the Applicant on a standard above a balance of probability but below beyond reasonable doubt
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment date is given inconsistently as 4/10/2024 and 24/10/2024
The 14-day compliance period is inconsistently computed: the court says it lapsed on 27/11/2024, yet the Petitioner alleged it lapsed on 6/11/2024 and the application says 11/9/2024
The date of oral arguments is given as 13/12/2014, an apparent typographical error for 2024
The grounds of opposition are dated 19/11/2025, after the judgment date of 25 September 2025, an apparent error for 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mohammed v Teachers Service Commission; Macharia & another (Contemnor) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E070 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2599 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Petition No. E070 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2599/eng@2025-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.