Michael Njoroge Mugo v Laikipia University [2015] KEELRC 568 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that dismissed employees cannot get reinstated before a full hearing — reinstatement is a final remedy, not an urgent interim fix.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Mandatory interlocutory orders in employment disputes
A mandatory order compelling reinstatement at the interlocutory stage was refused because the applicant showed no exceptional circumstances.
The court restated the settled principles on mandatory interlocutory orders: exceptional circumstances must be shown beyond a prima facie case. None were demonstrated. Granting the order would effect specific performance of an employment contract before hearing the merits, contrary to the common law and section 49(4)(d) of the Employment Act, 2007. The court therefore declined to exercise its discretion in the applicant's favour.
Timing of reinstatement as a remedy
Reinstatement under sections 49(3) and 50 of the Employment Act, 2007 is a final, discretionary remedy available only after a finding of unfair termination on the merits.
Reinstatement became a primary remedy only with the Employment Act, 2007. It is discretionary and final, contingent on a judicial finding that termination was unfair. Such a finding requires hearing both sides and cannot be made on the papers at an interlocutory stage. The applicant must await a hearing on the merits before seeking reinstatement.
Conservatory orders in employment causes
A conservatory order restraining enforcement of the dismissal letter was refused.
The court held conservatory orders belong to a different realm of law and were not merited in the instant case. No extended reasoning was provided; the refusal flowed from the analysis that the interim orders sought were spent or otherwise unavailable at the interlocutory stage.
Status of spent interim orders
Orders 2 and 3 of the motion, seeking preservation pending inter partes hearing, had become spent as the claimant had already been dismissed.
Orders 2 and 3 sought to preserve or protect the applicant's rights pending hearing inter partes, but he had already been dismissed. Since they were not granted at the ex parte stage, they logically became spent and required no further determination by the court.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant seeking a mandatory interlocutory order must demonstrate exceptional circumstances; a prima facie case alone is insufficient.
- Reinstatement is a discretionary and final remedy available only after a finding of unfair termination or wrongful dismissal, and cannot be granted at the interlocutory stage.
- The common law and section 49(4)(d) of the Employment Act, 2007 frown upon specific performance of employment contracts.
Court orders
#- 1.The motion dated 5 June 2015 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the motion to be in the cause
- 3.Applicant to file and serve witness statements and any other documents before 14 August 2015
- 4.Respondent to file and serve Response, witness statements and documents to be relied on before 31 August 2015
- 5.Hearing date to be fixed when the diary for 2016 is opened
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act, 2007; motion seeking interim employment orders)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Michael Njoroge Mugo v Laikipia University [2015] KEELRC 568 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Nakuru Cause (Employment and Labour Relations Court), filed 5 June 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/568/eng@2015-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.