Onyango v Speaker County Assembly of Migori & 3 others (Cause E088 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2829 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 removal of the claimant's name from the 4th respondent's payroll in June 2025 constituted contempt of the judgment delivered on 17th February, 2025
- 2.Whether the applicant proved the elements of civil contempt (terms of the order, knowledge of the terms, and wilful failure to comply) to the requisite standard
- 3.Whether the named respondents should be committed to civil jail and fined Kshs.10 million for contempt
Key legal issues
#Whether removal of the claimant's name from the payroll breached the judgment of 17th February 2025
No contempt was made out; the judgment made no order requiring retention on the payroll, and the retention had been sustained only by the interim injunction of 29th February 2024 which lapsed with the judgment
The court traced the history: the interim order of 29th February 2024 restrained implementation of the revocation resolution pending determination of the claim. The judgment of 17th February 2025 granted only a declaration of unfairness, two months' gross salary compensation, and costs, expressly declining reinstatement. Once the suit was determined, nothing barred removal of the name from the payroll. Alleging contempt was a misrepresentation of the court order.
Elements and standard of proof for civil contempt
The court applied the settled three/four-element test and the heightened standard of proof, neither of which the applicant satisfied
Relying on Samuel M. N. Mweru v National Land Commission and Mutitika v Baharini Farm Ltd, the court restated that contempt requires proof of the terms of the order, knowledge, failure to comply, and deliberate or intentional conduct, proved to a standard higher than balance of probabilities. The applicant could not even show an order directed at the named individuals.
Whether the declaration of unfair revocation reinstated the claimant
It did not; reinstatement was declined and compensation under Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act was awarded in lieu
The applicant's argument that the declaration rendered the County Assembly resolution void and reinstated him was rejected as convoluted. Both revocation/reinstatement and compensation are discretionary reliefs under Section 49(1)(c); the court had declined reinstatement with reasons and awarded two months' gross salary instead, ending the claimant's tenure on 17th February 2025.
Legal principles established
#- To succeed in civil contempt the applicant must prove the terms of the order, knowledge of those terms by the respondent, and failure to comply, with wilfulness and bad faith inferred but rebuttable
- The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than the balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt
- Non-compliance must be wilful and mala fides; bona fide unreasonable non-compliance does not constitute contempt
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's Notice of Motion dated 7th July, 2025 is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act; Section 13 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Commitment of the 1st, 3rd and named respondents to civil jail for 6 months for contempt
The applicant failed to prove contempt; the judgment of 17th February 2025 made no order requiring retention on payroll, and reinstatement was never granted
Fine of Kshs.10 million upon conviction for contempt
No case of wilful disobedience was established
Costs
The Notice of Motion dated 7th July, 2025 is dismissed with costs to the respondents
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 conclusion, the applicant's Notice of Motion dated 7th July, 2025 is without merit and it is accordingly dismissed with costs.
Consequently, nothing prevented the respondents from removing the applicant's name from the 4th respondent's payroll on any day after 17th February, 2025 as no court order barred them from doing so.
In our view, the standard of proof in contempt proceedings must be higher than proof on a balance of probabilities, almost but exactly beyond reasonable doubt.
It is an established principle of law that in order to succeed in civil contempt proceedings, the applicant has to prove (i) the terms of the order, (ii) Knowledge of these terms by the Respondent, (iii). Failure by the Respondent to comply with the terms of the order.
Issues in the judgment
#Inconsistent citations for the same authority: Mutitika V Bahari Farm Ltd is cited as [1985] KLR 229 in submissions and [1985] KLR 234 in the analysis
The judgment bears the marking 'DRAFT' at the end despite bearing a signature block and delivery date
The document is styled a judgment/ruling but the body refers to 'The courts find this argument convoluted', plural, in a single-judge bench
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Onyango v Speaker County Assembly of Migori & 3 others (Cause E088 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2829 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 7th July, 2025 (arising from Claim heard and determined by judgment delivered 17th February, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2829/eng@2025-10-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.