Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherELRC No. 301 of 2012

Kenya Power & Lighting Company v Mukala & another (Employment and Labour Relations Miscellaneous E341 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2926 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 October 2025
HWHellen Wasilwa
729 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This judgment deals with the sentencing stage of contempt proceedings arising from ELRC No. 301 of 2012, Alexander Kasina Mukala v Kenya Power and Lighting Company Limited, in which the court had awarded the Claimant Kshs. 637,312 for unfair termination. By a ruling dated 6th May 2025 the court had found the Respondents in contempt of its orders. The 1st Respondent/Contemnor filed an affidavit dated 11th June 2025 seeking to purge contempt, explaining that he had fallen out with his former advocate, acted in person, and did not understand that a ruling of 18th February 2021 had restrained him from executing the judgment of 9th October 2018; he further cited his unemployment and expressed remorse, pleading for mercy and a lenient punishment. The Applicant countered that it had notified the Respondent's advocates of the stay order by letters dated 7th February 2020 and 31st October 2024, that the Respondent had responded by email on 7th November 2024 threatening to proceed with attachment, and that ignorance of the law and hardship were no defences to deliberate defiance. Considering the affidavits and submissions, the court held that the Respondent's admission that he knew of the orders barring execution and informed his counsel amounted to contemptuous execution despite a subsisting court order. The court found the Respondent guilty of contempt and liable to punishment. No specific sentence or costs order appears in the judgment as delivered.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the 1st Respondent/Contemnor should be punished for contempt of the court's orders restraining execution
  2. 2.Whether the 1st Respondent's explanations (ignorance of the law, hardship, self-representation, remorse) mitigate punishment

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the 1st Respondent's knowledge of the restraining orders and subsequent execution amounted to contempt

Holding

Yes - the Respondent knew of the orders barring execution and informed his counsel, amounting to an admission of contemptuous execution

Reasoning

The court examined the affidavits and submissions. The 1st Respondent admitted awareness of the orders barring execution and that he informed his counsel about them. Proceeding with execution despite a subsisting court order, even through counsel or an auctioneer, constitutes contempt. Explanations of ignorance of the law, unemployment and self-representation did not displace the admission of deliberate defiance.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party who knows of an order barring execution and proceeds to execute despite it is guilty of contempt and liable to punishment

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 1st Respondent is found guilty of contempt and liable to punishment

The bench

#

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

HW
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Contempt jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (enforcement of its own orders)

Relief refused

#

The 1st Respondent's plea for mercy and lenient punishment

The court found his execution of the decree despite knowledge of the stay order to be a contemptuous admission warranting punishment

p. 2

Costs

No costs order recorded in the judgment.

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.

It is in efiect an admission of execution despite the existence of a court order which is contemptuous. The respondent is therefore guilty of contempt and is liable to punishment.
p. 2Finding of guilt and liability to punishment for contempt
It is the Applicant's case that ignorance of the law is no defence and as such, the 1st Respondent's assertion that he is not conversant with the law does not justify his blatant defiance of the court's orders.
p. 2Ignorance of the law as no defence to contempt (as argued by the Applicant)

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The court refers to the 1st Respondent as 'she' although the record elsewhere describes him in the male gender

material

The judgment concludes with a finding of guilt and liability to punishment but does not record the specific sentence imposed

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Power & Lighting Company v Mukala & another (Employment and Labour Relations Miscellaneous E341 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2926 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC No. 301 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2926/eng@2025-10-27

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