The Court of Appeal blocked the sentencing of the Chief Executive Officer of Mater Misericordiae Hospital, who was found guilty of contempt of court in an employment dispute.
In a ruling delivered, a three-judge bench comprising Justices Francis Tuiyott, Pauline Nyamweya and Joel Ngugi granted a temporary stay, preventing the CEO from appearing before the lower court for mitigation and a potential jail sentence, which was scheduled for this Friday, January 16, 2026.
The appellate court restrained the ELRC from proceeding with mitigation, sentencing or any other penal consequences arising from the contempt finding against the hospital, which is operated by the Registered Trustees of the Sisters of Mercy (Kenya).
However, the judges allowed the substantive employment dispute before the ELRC to continue.
The matter arises from an ongoing employment dispute between Mater Misericordiae Hospital and Dr. Khadija Essa Shabdin.
During the proceedings, the ELRC issued interlocutory orders directing the hospital to take certain steps.
Dr. Shabdin later moved the court, alleging non-compliance, prompting contempt proceedings.
In the impugned ruling, the ELRC found the hospital in contempt of court and ordered its Chief Executive Officer to personally appear before the court for mitigation and sentencing.
Aggrieved by that decision, the hospital moved to the Court of Appeal under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, seeking a stay of execution and a halt to further proceedings pending appeal.
The hospital argued that the contempt finding was made without proper consideration of whether the alleged disobedience was willful or deliberate, and that the trial court failed to distinguish between the corporate entity and its CEO before directing personal attendance for sentencing.
The hospital further contended that allowing mitigation and sentencing to proceed would render the intended appeal nugatory, particularly if penal sanctions were imposed.
In opposing the application, Dr. Shabdin argued that the intended appeal was frivolous and that contempt proceedings are meant to safeguard the authority of the court.
She maintained that mitigation and sentencing did not, by themselves, extinguish the hospital’s right of appeal and urged the court to uphold the public interest in enforcing obedience to court orders.
In its determination, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that an applicant under Rule 5(2)(b) must demonstrate both an arguable appeal and that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if interim relief is not granted.
The judges found that the hospital had raised arguable issues, including questions on the proper invocation of contempt jurisdiction against an institutional litigant and the procedural safeguards applicable in such proceedings.
On the nugatory aspect, the court held that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and that once mitigation and sentencing take place, especially where penal consequences are involved, the process cannot be meaningfully reversed.
“If those proceedings were to go ahead before the intended appeal is heard, the appeal would be reduced, at best, to an academic exercise,” the court said.
However, the judges declined to stay the entire ELRC case.
They said doing so would unduly delay the resolution of the underlying employment dispute to the prejudice of the respondent.
“The nugatory risk arises specifically from the contempt-related proceedings,” the court said.
The Court of Appeal consequently ordered a stay limited strictly to the contempt ruling and any mitigation, sentencing or penal steps flowing from it, pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@Kahawatungu.com — this is our only official communication channel
