Njuguna v Kenya Literature Bureau & another; Public Service Commission (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E099 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2915 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 1st Respondent was in contempt of the orders of 28th November 2024
The court declined to find contempt, noting respondents had engaged staff on the HR instruments but required proof of wider stakeholder engagement, revocation of acting appointments and progress on recruitment
The court reviewed the five orders of the judgment and the respondents' evidence of a Road Map for public participation, staff meetings and a participation report. It found evidence of staff engagement but no evidence of engagement with other stakeholders, nor evidence that staff were informed they had reverted to former positions, nor demonstrated progress on recruitment. However, given the orders required progressive processes, the court hesitated to find contempt and instead directed the respondents to demonstrate progress towards compliance.
Whether the respondents complied with the public participation order (Order No. 2)
Partial compliance only: staff were engaged but there was no evidence of engagement with other stakeholders
The respondents produced a Road Map approved by the Board, staff meetings on 5th and 28th May 2025, memoranda, and a report dated 1st June 2025 on the public participation process. The court acknowledged this evidence of engagement with staff but found no evidence of engagement with other stakeholders in the same process, so the injunction order had not been fully complied with.
Whether revocation of the impugned memo and acting appointments was necessary
The court noted no evidence was submitted that affected staff were notified they reverted to former positions
The respondents argued the memo of 28th June 2024 was already quashed by Order No. 5 and acting appointments had automatically lapsed, so no revocation was needed. The court observed that the respondents had not submitted any evidence indicating that the revocation of previously made acting appointments had been communicated to staff, nor that staff had reverted to their former positions before the impugned appointments.
Legal principles established
#- To succeed in civil contempt proceedings, the applicant must prove the terms of the order, the respondent's knowledge of those terms, and failure by the respondent to comply
- A party instituting constitutional proceedings must demonstrate the rights infringed and the basis of the grievance, linking the aggrieved party to the constitutional provisions alleged to be contravened
- Affidavits must be confined to facts within the deponent's own knowledge, with statements of information and belief disclosing sources and grounds
Court orders
#- 1.The respondents were not found to be in contempt of court
- 2.The respondents were directed to demonstrate progress made towards compliance with the orders of the judgment of 28th November 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 5 of the Judicature Act (powers to punish for contempt of court); Article 258 of the Constitution (standing)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njuguna v Kenya Literature Bureau & another; Public Service Commission (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E099 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2915 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 22nd May 2025 arising from ELRC Petition judgment delivered 28th November 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2915/eng@2025-10-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.