Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNotice of Motion in ELRCC (consolidated with ELRCC No. 400 of 2015)· [2015] KEELRC 618 (KLR)

Alfonso Katheka Munyali & another v Council of the Kenya School of Government & another [2015] KEELRC 618 (KLR)

Industrial Court (Employment and Labour Relations Court)
31 July 2015
OMO. N. Makau
2,843 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court blocked the Kenya School of Government from removing two Campus Directors, confirming government employers can be injuncted in employment disputes.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimants, former Directors of the defunct Mombasa and Matuga Government Training Institutes, sued after the Director-General of the Kenya School of Government (KSG) deployed them to academic functions by letter dated 11.6.2015 without specifying a job title, description or guarantee of benefits. They had earlier accepted, by letter dated 28.2.2014, an option under Section 21(4) of the Kenya School of Government Act to continue serving KSG on their then-current terms and conditions rather than be redeployed to the Public Service Commission. They sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the Respondents from removing them as Campus Directors and installing new ones, arguing breach of contract, discrimination and unfair demotion. The Respondents contended the deployment was lawful, that the Claimants never applied for the advertised Campus Director vacancies, that their job groups and salaries were unaffected, and that the Government Proceedings Act barred injuncting the government. Applying the Giella v Cassman Brown conditions, O. N. Makau, J found a prima facie case on the accepted offer letter now being violated, found irreparable harm because no horizontal or vertical office existed for deployment and the injury was unquantifiable, and held the balance of convenience favoured the Claimants since denying the injunction would destroy the substratum of the suit. The objection based on the Government Proceedings Act failed because Section 3 of the Employment Act binds the Government and the court has unfettered jurisdiction under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Court Act. The motion was allowed with an injunction and an order that the Claimants continue in office with full benefits; costs were awarded to the Claimants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimants established a prima facie case with probability of success

Holding

They did - an arguable case of breach of contract and breach of the KSG Act was shown through the accepted offer letter dated 28.2.2014 which the Respondents were now violating.

Reasoning

The court applied the Mrao definition of a prima facie case. The undisputed facts showed the Claimants accepted the offer to continue serving KSG on current terms, were qualified, had served as Campus Directors since 2012, and were deployed without specified job title or description. This constituted a genuine and arguable case in law and facts requiring rebuttal at trial.

p. 4
02

Whether the Claimants would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were denied

Holding

Yes - the deployment letter did not specify a job title or guarantee job group and benefits, and no horizontal or vertical offices would be available, making the injury unquantifiable in monetary terms.

Reasoning

The court found the deployment letter did not specify the new job title or guarantee retention of job group and benefits, and the Director-General's replying affidavit did not confirm counsel's assurances. Since all Campus Director positions and above would be filled substantively, the Claimants' services would become superfluous, an injury not measurable in money.

p. 5
03

Where the balance of convenience lies and whether the court can injunct the government

Holding

The balance of convenience favours the Claimants; the Government Proceedings Act does not bar the injunction because the dispute is founded on the Employment Act, which binds the Government, and the court has jurisdiction under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Court Act.

Reasoning

Denying the injunction would destroy the substratum of the suit and render it nugatory since reinstatement would be impossible. The objection based on Section 16 of the Government Proceedings Act failed because Section 3 of the Employment Act binds the Government and KSG, and the Industrial Court's jurisdiction under Section 12(3) permits any orders meeting the ends of justice.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Employment relations are prima facie private law agreements even where the employer is government, and the Industrial Court has unfettered jurisdiction under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Court Act to grant injunctions in such disputes notwithstanding the Government Proceedings Act.
  • A prima facie case in a civil application is a genuine and arguable case in which a right has apparently been infringed so as to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the opposite party (quoting Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya).

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents, servants or assigns from terminating, removing, replacing, dismissing and/or deploying the Claimants from their current positions as Directors of Kenya School of Government Mombasa Campus and Matuga Campus respectively, and from installing any other person as Campus Director, and/or committing any breach of the contract of employment, pending the hearing and determination of the suit
  2. 2.The Claimants shall continue to discharge the duties of Director of Kenya School of Government Mombasa Campus and Matuga Campus respectively with full benefits pending the hearing and determination of the suit
  3. 3.Costs to the claimants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Kenya School of Government ActSections 3, 4(2), 4, 21(3), 21(4)
  • Employment ActSection 3
  • Industrial Court Procedure RulesRules 16 and 21
  • Government Proceedings ActSection 16
  • Industrial Court ActSection 12(3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Giella Vs Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd.
    [1973] EA 358
  • Governor of Nyeri County Vs Benson Kinyua Mwangi
    Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2015
  • Mrao Ltd vs The First American Bank of Kenya
    [2003] KLR 125
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 3 of the Employment Act and Section 12(3) of the Industrial Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Alfonso Katheka Munyali & another v Council of the Kenya School of Government & another [2015] KEELRC 618 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Notice of Motion in ELRCC (consolidated with ELRCC No. 400 of 2015). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/618/eng@2015-07-31

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