JOB WAINAINA MUCUHA & ANOTHER vs THE REGITRAR OF TRADE UNIONS) KENYA UNION OF ENTERTAINMENT) & MUSIC INDUSTRY EMPLOYER [2002] KEHC 261 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI

MISC. APP. 1655 OF 1999

JOB WAINAINA MUCUHA & ANR ……........…………................…APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE REGITRAR OF TRADE UNIONSKENYA UNION

OF ENTERTAINMENT& MUSIC INDUSTRY EMPLOYER …......RESPONDENT

R U L I N G

By the chamber summons of the 15. 3.2001 as annexed applicant seeks to an order that the Registrar of Trade Unions be held in contempt of the order of this court of the 4/1/2000 and be committed to civil jail.

The order in questions order (3) states:-

“That there will be a temporary stay until the hearing of the motion which will be filed in 21 days”.

The order with a penal notice was served according to Jasheth Aluvale Mashetu in his affidavit of the 15/3/2001 on the Senior Deputy Registrar General on the 16. 2.2001.

The application now seeks the order asked for on the tasks that on the 26/11/1999 the Registrar of Trade Unions without any other of right purportedly registered non members to occupy all the offices including those that were not vacant (see para 5 of the applicants affidavit of the 15/3/2001).

I can find no evidence on the application other than a rare assertion by the applicant that the Registrar General did register non-members to occupy all the said offices on the 26. 11. 1999. If in fact that Registrar General had registered non-members on the 26/11/1999 as alleged then as Mr. Langat points out the order could not relate to matters in the past and as such there could be no contempt.

In order for an application of this kind to succeed there must be an order which either directs or forbids someone to either do some act or refrain from it. The order must be served personally on the person in question. The order having a penal notice evidenced thereon. The person served who must be named must be shown to have disobeyed the order by either doing or not doing something which the order directs or forbids.

In this case I do not know the name of the person on whom the order was served. Further there is no evidence that that person disobeyed the order.

I am not at all clear what the order in fact stayed as this is not stated in the application and I see no reason why the person on whom the order was stayed should be any the wiser.

I find no merit in the application which I dismiss with costs.

P. RANSLEY

COMMISSIONER FOR ASSIZE

6. 2.2002

Coram: Ransley, Commissioner for Assize

Martha Court clerk

Mr. Opiyo for applicant

Mr. Ochieng for 2nd respondent

No appearance for 1st respondent

Ruling delivered.

P. RANSLEY

COMMISSIONER FOR ASSIZE