Ngeno & 35 others v Kericho County Government & 6 others [2024] KEELC 5532 (KLR)

Ngeno & 35 others v Kericho County Government & 6 others (Environment & Land Petition 3 of 2016) [2024] KEELC 5532 (KLR) (30 July 2024) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 5532 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Environment and Land Court at Kericho

Environment & Land Petition 3 of 2016

HS Wasilwa, J

July 30, 2024

Between

Simon K. Ngeno & 35 others

Applicant

and

Kericho County Government

1st Respondent

The Governor, Kericho County Government

2nd Respondent

Kericho County Public Service Board

3rd Respondent

The Inter Governmental Relations, Technical Committee

4th Respondent

Public Service Commission

5th Respondent

Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education Science and Technology

6th Respondent

Hon. Attorney General

7th Respondent

Ruling

1. This ruling is in respect of the Petitioners/ Applicants’ Notice of motion dated 29th March, 2017, brought pursuant to section 5(1) of the Judicature Act, Order 52(3) of the Supreme Court Practice Rules of England, seeking for the following Orders; -1. Spent.2. That the 2nd Respondent herein be summoned to Show Cause why he should not be committed to Civil Jail for disobeying Court Orders.3. That the 2nd Respondent herein be committed to Civil Jail, for a period of six months, for contempt of Court.4. That Alternatively, the Court does impose a fine of an amount the court deems fit, upon the 2nd Respondent.5. That the costs of this Application be borne by the 2nd Respondent.

2. The basis upon which the Application herein is made is that this Court made a decision, communicated vide Court Order of 10th February, 2017, that all petitioners except the 1,14,25 and 32 Petitioners be absorbed as Youth Polytechnic instructors 111 Job Group “H” with effect from 1st December, 2016 and the Petitioners 1,14,25 and 32 do serve on a renewable contract or serve on a contract pending the attainment of minimum requirement as provided in the scheme of service or be absorbed at a lower level job Group ‘G” and be deployed to other departments as from 1st November, 2016 and that costs of Kshs 100,000 are awarded to the petitioners.

3. That the 2nd Respondent was privy to this Order as it was served with a copy of the Order, However, despite being aware of the Orders of the Court, no action has been taken to implement the said Order.

4. That by refusing to obey the Orders issued by this Court, the 2nd Respondent is in contempt of Court Order. He thus urged this Court to find the 2nd Respondent in contempt of Court Order and allow the Applicant, in effect protect the dignity and authority of this Court

5. The Application is further supported by the Affidavit of Ronald Langat, one of the Petitioners herein, deposed upon on the 29th March, 2017. The affiant reiterated the grounds of the Application herein.

6. The Application is opposed by the Respondent who filed a Replying affidavit sworn by Joel K, Bett, the County Secretary and Head of Public Service Board of Kericho County, on the 17th October, 2017.

7. In the affidavit, the deponent stated that the Respondents have fully complied with the Court Orders as the Petitioners have been absorbed as Youth Polytechnic instructors and have already been issued with absorption letters as directed by the Court.

8. That the only issue pending in this matter is payment of costs to the Advocates which delay was occasioned by the very Advocates who have failed to define themselves in the Government Integrated Information Management System (IFMIS), which is a requirement before money is paid out electronically. That the details needed include the firm’s partners profile details, which has not been provided to them to effect the said payment.

9. The deponent stated that contrary to the allegation in the Application, the 2nd Respondent is not in contempt of Court. Rather that it is the said 2nd Respondent that suggested the fast-tracking of the matter by settling the matter out of Court and recording a consent.

10. Based on the foregoing, the affiant, urged this Court to dismiss the Application seeking to commit the 2nd Respondent to Civil jail.

11. I have examined all the averments of the parties. Since this is an application for show cause and wherein the Respondents are averring that they have made good the orders of this court, the application for show cause is merited and the Respondents will be given an opportunity to demonstrate their compliance with this court’s judgment and order of 10th February 2017. Costs in the cause.

RULING DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024. HON. LADY JUSTICE HELLEN WASILWAJUDGEIn the presence of: -Kipkoech for Petitioner – presentCounty Attorney for Kericho – AbsentCourt Assistant - Fred