John Muriithi & 3 others v Registered Trustees of the Sisters of Mercy [2015] KEELRC 597 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court blocked a hospital from firing four managers because it denied them a fair chance to respond to audit allegations before dismissal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Breach of natural justice in summary dismissal
The claimants were not given a fair hearing; the allegations were broad, lacking detail, and the Forensic Audit Report was withheld, so the advocate's letter seeking the report could not be treated as a failure to respond.
The respondent spent seven months on a forensic audit yet required responses to no fewer than five elaborate accusations by 3 p.m. the following day. When the claimants sought the underlying report, the respondent refused citing confidentiality never disclosed to them before termination. Section 41(2) of the Employment Act requires the employer to hear and consider representations before summary dismissal, and the request for information was not a refusal to respond.
Whether adequacy of damages defeats an injunction
No - an injunction can issue even where damages would suffice, in appropriate and compelling circumstances.
The respondent argued wrongful termination would be compensable in damages, relying on case law. The Court rejected the proposition that a party rich enough to pay damages may act contrary to procedure; such reasoning would be an erroneous interpretation of injunction principles. The employment relationship involves legitimate expectations built over an employee's productive life, justifying injunctive protection of the suit's subject matter.
Legal principles established
#- Fair hearing requires that a person affected by a decision be furnished with the charges and given a reasonable opportunity to respond
- The availability of damages does not automatically preclude the grant of an injunction
- Employment carries a legitimate expectation that separation will be for valid reasons and through fair procedure
Court orders
#- 1.The respondent restrained from terminating the claimants' services pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.The respondent shall not advertise or substantively fill the positions left vacant by the claimants pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 3.The claimants, under escort of respondent's security personnel, to be allowed access to their offices or places of work to collect their personal belongings
- 4.The claimants' suspension to remain in force but on half salary with effect from 4th February 2015 pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 5.Parties to go through pretrial procedures within 60 days of the Ruling
- 6.Matter to be mentioned on 24th September 2015 for directions on hearing of the main claim
- 7.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and the Constitution (fair labour relations)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "John Muriithi & 3 others v Registered Trustees of the Sisters of Mercy [2015] KEELRC 597 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Cause No. 153 of 2015 (consolidated with Cause Nos. 212 and 241 of 2015). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/597/eng@2015-07-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.