Court dismisses contempt case against NBA chair Prof. Kinyamario

0

Reporter, Irene Onyango

The Employment and Labour Relations Court has dismissed a contempt of court application filed by the National Biosafety Authority (NBA) CEO Roy B. Mugiira against the organization’s Board Chairman, Professor Jenesio Kinyamario.

In the December 20, 2024 ruling, Justice Stella Rutto ruled that Dr. Mugiira had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the NBA and its Chairman had deliberately violated a court order issued in July 2024.

Dr. Mugiira had moved to court after his suspension, arguing that the extension of his suspension was in contempt of a previous court order that had stayed all disciplinary proceedings against him.

“The extension of the claimant’s suspension did not accelerate the disciplinary process beyond where it was when the court issued the order on 25th July 2024. Essentially, it had the effect of maintaining the status quo.” ruled the judge.

According to court documents, the dispute originated from board resolutions made in April and July 2024, which led to Dr. Mugiira’s suspension over alleged issues arising from an audit report.

While the court had temporarily halted disciplinary actions pending further proceedings, the NBA maintained that the suspension remained valid.

Justice Rutto further ruled that the order issued on July 25, 2024, had not lifted Dr. Mugiira’s suspension but had only stayed further disciplinary actions.

The judge noted that extending the suspension did not amount to accelerating disciplinary proceedings, therefore, did not constitute contempt of court.

The court also found that the NBA chairman had acted within his mandate and that there was no willful disobedience of the court’s directive. Consequently, the judge dismissed Dr. Mugiira’s application, which sought a Sh 10 million fine against the NBA and a six-month jail term for Prof. Kinyamario.

The ruling reaffirms that suspensions can be extended as long as they do not contravene court orders explicitly prohibiting them. It also highlights the high threshold required to prove contempt of court, emphasizing that mere dissatisfaction with an administrative decision is insufficient.

The court also highlighted the high threshold required to prove contempt of court and clarifies that suspensions can be extended as long as they do not contravene court orders explicitly prohibiting them

“Contempt of court is in the nature of criminal proceedings; hence, proof of a case against a contemnor is higher than that of a balance of probability,” the judge noted.