Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2014] KEELRC 624 (KLR)

Maths Trading Company Limited v Catherine Mwihaki Ngambi [2014] KEELRC 624 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
25 February 2014
JRJames Rika
462 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employer that defied a court's status quo order by firing an employee lost its attempt to overturn the reinstatement order.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, Catherine Mwihaki Ngambi, filed a claim on 19th December 2013 seeking a permanent injunction restraining the Respondent Employer from terminating her employment on the facts giving rise to the cause, and a declaration that the letter calling her to a disciplinary hearing be null and void, together with an interim application for the same relief. On 27th December 2013 the Court granted leave to file a Replying Affidavit, fixed the application inter partes for 28th January 2014, and ordered that the current status quo obtain until that date. On 28th January 2014, counsel for the Employer confirmed that a disciplinary process had taken place after 27th December 2013 and the Claimant's contract had been terminated, despite earlier assurance by counsel that no disciplinary process had occurred after the initial orders. The Court found this to be in defiance of the status quo orders and ordered the Employer to reinstate the Claimant until 4th March 2014. The Employer instead filed an application for review of the reinstatement order. In this ruling delivered on 25th February 2014, James Rika, Judge, declined the review, holding it had no merit, and directed the Employer to comply with the Court's previous orders. Parties were to proceed with the hearing on 4th March 2014 and were advised to fix the main claim for hearing on a priority basis. The Court observed that it does not ordinarily interfere with workplace disciplinary processes, but all parties must defer to the orders of the Court. No costs order was recorded.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the reinstatement order made in defiance of a status quo order should be reviewed

Holding

The review application was declined and the Employer directed to comply with the earlier orders

Reasoning

The Court found that on 27th December 2013 it ordered that the current status quo obtain until 28th January 2014, meaning no disciplinary process or termination should occur. Counsel for the Employer had told the Court on 27th December that no disciplinary meeting took place, so there was no justification in misunderstanding the order. The subsequent termination was in defiance of the order, and the reinstatement order of 28th January 2014 was proper. Review therefore had no merit.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Parties must obey and defer to court orders notwithstanding the Court's general reluctance to interfere with workplace disciplinary processes
  • An employer cannot claim misunderstanding of a status quo order where counsel had confirmed compliance to the Court

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for review is declined for lack of merit
  2. 2.The Employer is directed to comply with the orders previously issued by the Court
  3. 3.Parties to proceed with the hearing on 4th March 2014 as scheduled
  4. 4.Parties advised to fix the main claim for hearing on a priority basis
Jurisdiction invoked
Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (claim filed under the Court's employment dispute jurisdiction)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Maths Trading Company Limited v Catherine Mwihaki Ngambi [2014] KEELRC 624 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/624/eng@2014-02-25

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.