Shabdin v Registered Trustees of the Sisters of Mercy (Kenya) t/a Mater Misericordiae Hospital (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E006 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2619 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court found an employer in contempt for ignoring reinstatement orders, ruling that a dismissal the employee was never notified of cannot excuse non-compliance.
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 orders issued on 27th March 2025 were clear and unambiguous
- 2.whether the Respondent had knowledge of the said orders
- 3.whether there has been wilful disobedience by the Respondent
- 4.whether the Respondent's conduct amounts to contempt and warrants punitive orders
Key legal issues
#Whether the conservatory orders of 27th March 2025 were clear and unambiguous
The court found the order unambiguous, restraining transfer and directing reinstatement
The court reviewed the order of 27th March 2025 which restrained the transfer of the petitioner from Mater Misericordiae Hospital to Thika Medical Centre and directed her reinstatement. The respondent had opposed the original application but did not assert at that time that the petitioner had been dismissed. The court therefore held the order left no ambiguity.
Whether the respondent had knowledge of the orders and wilfully disobeyed them
Non-compliance amounted to contempt since the alleged summary dismissal was not proven to have been communicated to the petitioner
The respondent claimed the orders were incapable of implementation because the petitioner had been summarily dismissed on 4th February 2025. The court found the dismissal letter lacked evidence of service - no postal address, email or delivery book - so the petitioner was never notified of the alleged dismissal. Failure to implement the orders was thus contempt liable to punishment.
Legal principles established
#- Clarity of an order is a precondition to a finding of contempt
- Court orders must be obeyed unless and until set aside on review or appeal
- The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than the balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt
Court orders
#- 1.Finding that failure to implement the orders of 27th March 2025 constituted contempt of court liable to punishment
- 2.Costs of the application to be borne by the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent contempt jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over disobedience of its own orders of 27th March 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.
In absence of the said evidence then it follows that the petitioner applicant was never notified of her alleged summary dismissal and failure to implement orders of this court of 27th March 2025 was in contempt of this courts directions and is liable to punishment by the contemnor respondent.
Costs of this application will borne by the respondents.
the standard of proof in contempt proceedings must be higher than proof on the balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly, beyond reasonable doubt
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment finds contempt and makes no committal or purging order despite the application seeking committal to civil jail; only a liability finding and costs are ordered
The court's analysis applies the respondent's 'higher standard of proof' authority inconsistently, finding contempt without expressly addressing the standard of proof argued by the respondent
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Shabdin v Registered Trustees of the Sisters of Mercy (Kenya) t/a Mater Misericordiae Hospital (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E006 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2619 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 10th June 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2619/eng@2025-09-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.