1. Through a Motion dated 3 November 2025, the Respondents seek orders:
(i) …
(ii) THAT an order of this Honourable Court does issue and hereby issues, reviewing the Ruling of this Honourable Court dated 30th September 2025, whereby the Honourable Court sentenced Machakos County Secretary and the Chairperson Machakos County Public Service Board to 3 months civil jail.
(iii) …
(iv) THAT the replying affidavit by Ndambuki Muya (DR) dated 25th September 2025 (in response to the Petitioner’s application dated 20th March 2025) which was served upon James Oketch (info@jamesoketchadvocates.com) on 26.09.2025 advocate for the Petitioners, be admitted in to the records of this Court, as the reason for it not having been uploaded upon the Court Tracking System, is due to fact of Respondents email countyattorney@machakos.go.ke had not been mapped to case Nairobi Employment and Labour Relations Court Petition 23 of 2017 at the judiciary e filing portal.
(v) THAT the Notice of Appointment of advocates of Office of County Attorney dated 15th September 2025, which was served upon James Oketch advocate (info@jamesoketchadvocates.com) on 25th September 2025 at 11:42 am (to which James Oketch advocate, via its email, duly acknowledged receipt of the Notice of Appointment of Office of County Attorney as the advocates for the Respondents) be admitted in to the records of this Court, as the reason for it not having been filed or uploaded upon the Court Tracking System, is due to fact of Respondents email countyattorney@machakos.go.ke had not been mapped to case Nairobi Employment and Labour Relations Court Petition 23 Of 2017 at the judiciary e filing portal.
(vi) THAT the advocate for the Respondents be allowed to file in Court an affidavit of return of service evidencing service of the replying affidavit by Ndambuki Muya (DR) dated 25th September 2025 and the Notice of Appointment of Advocates dated 15th September 2025 upon James Oketch, and the said affidavit of service be admitted in to the records of this Court, on account of it having not having been uploaded upon the Court Tracking System due to fact of respondents email countyattorney@machakos.go.ke not having been mapped to case Nairobi Employment and Labour Relations Court Petition 23 Of 2017 at the judiciary e filing portal.
(vii) THAT James Oketch, the advocate on record for the Petitioner, be directed to provide the information that officials of the County Government of Machakos require for the purpose of processing Court award to the 157 litigants, through the firm of James Oketch & Co Advocates (as the advocate for KCGWU for the 157 litigants).
(viii) THAT in the alternative to prayer (vii), the Petitioner, that is, the Kenya County Government Workers Union (KCGWU), be directed to provide details of another advocate who is ready and willing to receive Court award on behalf of the 157 litigants in Nairobi Employment and Labour Relations Court Petition 23 of 2017
(ix) THAT having admitted the Notice of Appointment of advocate, the replying affidavit by Dr Ndambuki Muya (DR) dated 25th September 2025, and the affidavit of service of these two on record, in view of the error apparent on the face of the record in that the Petitioner have never extracted decree subsequent to the Nairobi and Employment Relations Court (ELRC) judgment issued on 19th June 2020, the Petitioner’s application dated 20th March 2025 be dismissed.
(x) THAT having admitted the Notice of Appointment of advocate, the replying affidavit by Dr Ndambuki Muya (DR) and the affidavit of service of these two on record, in view of the error apparent on the face of the record in that the Petitioners have not complied with the Government Proceedings Act (Chapter 40 Laws of Kenya), in general, and in particular section 21 thereof, in that no Certificate of Order has been extracted by the Petitioners, and none has been served upon the accounting officers of the County Government of Machakos as required by section 21 of the Government Proceedings
(xi) THAT the cost of this application be borne by the Petitioner.
2. The primary grounds in support of the Motion were that the Respondents’ advocate had not been mapped into the CTS and was thus unable to place itself and a replying affidavit on record; the Petitioner’s advocate had declined to accept payment in settlement of the decree; the Petitioner’s advocate had declined to provide its bank details to be included in the IFMIS system to facilitate payment; the Petitioner’s advocate had insisted that the Respondents pay the Petitioner’s directly; the Petitioner’s advocate had included 12 names for payment whilst the Petition had 157 names; the Petitioner’s advocate had provided inaccurate, incomplete or altered details; no decree had been extracted nor a Certificate of Order against the County Government issued; some of the Petitioners had instituted parallel proceedings in their own names and obtained judgment and that it would be gross injustice to jail the County Secretary and Chairperson of the Public Service Board when the Respondents had been ready to settle the decretal amounts.
3. The General Secretary of the Petitioner filed a replying affidavit in opposition to the Motion on 14 November 2025.
4. The General Secretary deponed in the affidavit that the Motion was seeking to reopen the Court’s judgment when the Court was functus officio; the Petitioners had provided their bank details; the Respondents had failed to satisfy the decree after judgment on 19 June 2020; the contemnors had already been convicted and sentenced; the Motion had been overtaken by events; there was no new evidence to warrant review; the Petitioner had not given the advocate on record instructions to receive settlement payment and that the Motion was irredeemably defective.
5. The Respondents filed submissions on 19 November 2025, reiterating the assertions in the supporting affidavit.
6. The Petitioner’s submissions were not on record by the agreed timelines.
7. When the parties appeared in Court on 17 November 2025, the Court stayed the order committing the contemners to civil jail on the condition that the Respondents deposited the judgment sums in Court on or before 1 December 2025.
8. The Respondents did not comply with the order.
9. The Court has considered the record, Motion, affidavits and submissions and makes the following determinations.
10. One, the Petitioner lodged a Notice of Appeal against the judgment of 19 June 2020 on or around 24 July 2020.
11. Two, the Court informed the Petitioner that certified copies of proceedings were ready through a letter dated 2 August 2021.
12. Three, there is nothing on the record to suggest that the Petitioner filed an Appeal with the Court of Appeal or that a decree was extracted from the judgment.
13. Four, there is no evidence or notes on the record that the Petitioner applied for and obtained a Certificate of Order against the County Government of Machakos.
14. Five, an extraction of the decree and grant of a Certificate of Order against the County Government of Machakos was a legal sine qua non to enable lawful execution to be conducted.
15. Six, in the absence of the decree and Certificate of Order against the County Government of Machakos, the execution initiated by the Petitioner through contempt Motion dated 24 March 2025 had no legal foundation.
16. Seven, the Respondents have demonstrated a willingness to settle the decretal sums, and it would be a gross injustice to commit the contemnors to civil jail without affording the Respondents an opportunity to settle the outstanding amounts.
17. Eight, the Petitioner’s insistence that its members, on whose behalf it brought the Petition, be paid directly is a legal quibble or triviality which does not serve the objective of expeditious and proportionate resolution of disputes.
18. Parties should not keep the Courts busy unnecessarily.
19. Nine, the Court is alive to the requirements for payments out of public funds through systems such as IFMIS.
20. Ten, it is doubtful whether the method of execution was the correct one considering that the Respondents is a county government.
21. Lastly, optimal utilisation of scarce judicial time and effort and the interests of justice require that, despite any irregularities noted and apparent on the record and to bring closure to the Petitioner’s members, the Court will make the following orders.
22. The delivery of this Ruling was brought forward with notice to the parties.
Orders
23. In light of the above, the Court allows the Motion dated 3 November 2025, and suspends the order committing the County Secretary, County Government of Machakos and the Chairperson, County Public Service Board, Machakos to 3 months imprisonment.
24. In order to meet the ends of justice, the Court orders:
(i) The Petitioner to provide its bank account details to the Respondents within 7 days of today to facilitate the settlement of the judgment awards.
(ii) The Respondents to make payments into the bank account within 21 days of the Petitioner providing them with the bank account details and provide a Schedule of the payments.
(iii) In default, the Petitioner is at liberty to enforce the order committing the contemnors to civil jail.
(iv) Costs in the cause.
(i) …
(ii) THAT an order of this Honourable Court does issue and hereby issues, reviewing the Ruling of this Honourable Court dated 30th September 2025, whereby the Honourable Court sentenced Machakos County Secretary and the Chairperson Machakos County Public Service Board to 3 months civil jail.
(iii) …
(iv) THAT the replying affidavit by Ndambuki Muya (DR) dated 25th September 2025 (in response to the Petitioner’s application dated 20th March 2025) which was served upon James Oketch (info@jamesoketchadvocates.com) on 26.09.2025 advocate for the Petitioners, be admitted in to the records of this Court, as the reason for it not having been uploaded upon the Court Tracking System, is due to fact of Respondents email countyattorney@machakos.go.ke had not been mapped to case Nairobi Employment and Labour Relations Court Petition 23 of 2017 at the judiciary e filing portal.
(v) THAT the Notice of Appointment of advocates of Office of County Attorney dated 15th September 2025, which was served upon James Oketch advocate (info@jamesoketchadvocates.com) on 25th September 2025 at 11:42 am (to which James Oketch advocate, via its email, duly acknowledged receipt of the Notice of Appointment of Office of County Attorney as the advocates for the Respondents) be admitted in to the records of this Court, as the reason for it not having been filed or uploaded upon the Court Tracking System, is due to fact of Respondents email countyattorney@machakos.go.ke had not been mapped to case Nairobi Employment and Labour Relations Court Petition 23 Of 2017 at the judiciary e filing portal.
(vi) THAT the advocate for the Respondents be allowed to file in Court an affidavit of return of service evidencing service of the replying affidavit by Ndambuki Muya (DR) dated 25th September 2025 and the Notice of Appointment of Advocates dated 15th September 2025 upon James Oketch, and the said affidavit of service be admitted in to the records of this Court, on account of it having not having been uploaded upon the Court Tracking System due to fact of respondents email countyattorney@machakos.go.ke not having been mapped to case Nairobi Employment and Labour Relations Court Petition 23 Of 2017 at the judiciary e filing portal.
(vii) THAT James Oketch, the advocate on record for the Petitioner, be directed to provide the information that officials of the County Government of Machakos require for the purpose of processing Court award to the 157 litigants, through the firm of James Oketch & Co Advocates (as the advocate for KCGWU for the 157 litigants).
(viii) THAT in the alternative to prayer (vii), the Petitioner, that is, the Kenya County Government Workers Union (KCGWU), be directed to provide details of another advocate who is ready and willing to receive Court award on behalf of the 157 litigants in Nairobi Employment and Labour Relations Court Petition 23 of 2017
(ix) THAT having admitted the Notice of Appointment of advocate, the replying affidavit by Dr Ndambuki Muya (DR) dated 25th September 2025, and the affidavit of service of these two on record, in view of the error apparent on the face of the record in that the Petitioner have never extracted decree subsequent to the Nairobi and Employment Relations Court (ELRC) judgment issued on 19th June 2020, the Petitioner’s application dated 20th March 2025 be dismissed.
(x) THAT having admitted the Notice of Appointment of advocate, the replying affidavit by Dr Ndambuki Muya (DR) and the affidavit of service of these two on record, in view of the error apparent on the face of the record in that the Petitioners have not complied with the Government Proceedings Act (Chapter 40 Laws of Kenya), in general, and in particular section 21 thereof, in that no Certificate of Order has been extracted by the Petitioners, and none has been served upon the accounting officers of the County Government of Machakos as required by section 21 of the Government Proceedings
(xi) THAT the cost of this application be borne by the Petitioner.
2. The primary grounds in support of the Motion were that the Respondents’ advocate had not been mapped into the CTS and was thus unable to place itself and a replying affidavit on record; the Petitioner’s advocate had declined to accept payment in settlement of the decree; the Petitioner’s advocate had declined to provide its bank details to be included in the IFMIS system to facilitate payment; the Petitioner’s advocate had insisted that the Respondents pay the Petitioner’s directly; the Petitioner’s advocate had included 12 names for payment whilst the Petition had 157 names; the Petitioner’s advocate had provided inaccurate, incomplete or altered details; no decree had been extracted nor a Certificate of Order against the County Government issued; some of the Petitioners had instituted parallel proceedings in their own names and obtained judgment and that it would be gross injustice to jail the County Secretary and Chairperson of the Public Service Board when the Respondents had been ready to settle the decretal amounts.
3. The General Secretary of the Petitioner filed a replying affidavit in opposition to the Motion on 14 November 2025.
4. The General Secretary deponed in the affidavit that the Motion was seeking to reopen the Court’s judgment when the Court was functus officio; the Petitioners had provided their bank details; the Respondents had failed to satisfy the decree after judgment on 19 June 2020; the contemnors had already been convicted and sentenced; the Motion had been overtaken by events; there was no new evidence to warrant review; the Petitioner had not given the advocate on record instructions to receive settlement payment and that the Motion was irredeemably defective.
5. The Respondents filed submissions on 19 November 2025, reiterating the assertions in the supporting affidavit.
6. The Petitioner’s submissions were not on record by the agreed timelines.
7. When the parties appeared in Court on 17 November 2025, the Court stayed the order committing the contemners to civil jail on the condition that the Respondents deposited the judgment sums in Court on or before 1 December 2025.
8. The Respondents did not comply with the order.
9. The Court has considered the record, Motion, affidavits and submissions and makes the following determinations.
10. One, the Petitioner lodged a Notice of Appeal against the judgment of 19 June 2020 on or around 24 July 2020.
11. Two, the Court informed the Petitioner that certified copies of proceedings were ready through a letter dated 2 August 2021.
12. Three, there is nothing on the record to suggest that the Petitioner filed an Appeal with the Court of Appeal or that a decree was extracted from the judgment.
13. Four, there is no evidence or notes on the record that the Petitioner applied for and obtained a Certificate of Order against the County Government of Machakos.
14. Five, an extraction of the decree and grant of a Certificate of Order against the County Government of Machakos was a legal sine qua non to enable lawful execution to be conducted.
15. Six, in the absence of the decree and Certificate of Order against the County Government of Machakos, the execution initiated by the Petitioner through contempt Motion dated 24 March 2025 had no legal foundation.
16. Seven, the Respondents have demonstrated a willingness to settle the decretal sums, and it would be a gross injustice to commit the contemnors to civil jail without affording the Respondents an opportunity to settle the outstanding amounts.
17. Eight, the Petitioner’s insistence that its members, on whose behalf it brought the Petition, be paid directly is a legal quibble or triviality which does not serve the objective of expeditious and proportionate resolution of disputes.
18. Parties should not keep the Courts busy unnecessarily.
19. Nine, the Court is alive to the requirements for payments out of public funds through systems such as IFMIS.
20. Ten, it is doubtful whether the method of execution was the correct one considering that the Respondents is a county government.
21. Lastly, optimal utilisation of scarce judicial time and effort and the interests of justice require that, despite any irregularities noted and apparent on the record and to bring closure to the Petitioner’s members, the Court will make the following orders.
22. The delivery of this Ruling was brought forward with notice to the parties.
Orders
23. In light of the above, the Court allows the Motion dated 3 November 2025, and suspends the order committing the County Secretary, County Government of Machakos and the Chairperson, County Public Service Board, Machakos to 3 months imprisonment.
24. In order to meet the ends of justice, the Court orders:
(i) The Petitioner to provide its bank account details to the Respondents within 7 days of today to facilitate the settlement of the judgment awards.
(ii) The Respondents to make payments into the bank account within 21 days of the Petitioner providing them with the bank account details and provide a Schedule of the payments.
(iii) In default, the Petitioner is at liberty to enforce the order committing the contemnors to civil jail.
(iv) Costs in the cause.