Former National Biosafety Authority (NBA) CEO Roy Mugira has lost his bid to have the authority cited in contempt over his suspension, setting a significant precedent for employee suspensions and the legal thresholds for contempt of court.
In a ruling delivered on December 20, 2024, by Justice Stella Rutto, the Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed Dr Mugira’s contempt of court application against NBA Chairman Prof. Jenesio Kinyamario. Mugira had argued that the extension of his suspension violated a previous court order that had temporarily stayed all disciplinary proceedings against him.
However, the court ruled that the extension of the suspension did not breach the court’s directive, which had merely halted further disciplinary actions, not lifting his suspension. Justice Rutto stated, “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.”
The court further clarified that the order issued on July 25, 2024, did not imply that Mugira should resume his duties after the suspension period had ended. As a result, the judge ruled that the NBA’s actions did not constitute contempt of court.
Mugira had also sought a Sh10 million fine against the NBA and a six-month jail sentence for Prof. Kinyamario, but this was also dismissed. Despite finding that Prof. Kinyamario had committed perjury, Justice Rutto noted that the offence fell under criminal jurisdiction and thus was beyond the court’s authority.
“Contempt of court is in the nature of criminal proceedings; hence, proof of a case against a contemptor is higher than that of a balance of probability,” quoted the judge, reinforcing the stringent requirements for proving contempt.
The case, stemming from resolutions made in April and July 2024 related to an audit report, highlights the complexities surrounding employee suspensions and the legal boundaries for challenging administrative decisions. The NBA’s stance, which maintained that Mugira’s suspension remained valid despite the court’s stay on disciplinary action, was upheld.
This ruling reaffirms that suspensions can be extended as long as they do not violate explicit court orders. It also underscores the high legal bar required to prove contempt, stating that dissatisfaction with administrative decisions alone is insufficient to meet this threshold.
With the leadership dispute at the NBA still unresolved, it remains unclear whether Mugira will challenge the decision or seek further legal recourse.
