Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No 2301 of 2016· [2017] KEELRC 2013 (KLR)

Jacinta Sekoh Ochieng v Kenya Pipeline Limited [2017] eKLR

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 January 2017
LNLINNET NDOLO
1,385 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court declined to reinstate a dismissed employee at an early stage, ruling reinstatement is a final remedy granted only after a full hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi, delivered by Linnet Ndolo J on 27th January 2017, determines the Claimant's Notice of Motion dated 14th November 2016 brought at the interlocutory stage of an employment claim. The Claimant, formerly Chief Corporate Communications Officer of the Respondent, sought a temporary injunction restraining the Respondent from filling her former position, a stay of execution of the termination letter dated 5th August 2016, and reinstatement pending trial. She alleged that her termination, following disciplinary proceedings over subsistence allowance and allegations of gross dishonesty, violated Section 45 of the Employment Act, Articles 27 and 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act. The Respondent, in a replying affidavit sworn by Managing Director Joe Sang, maintained that the termination followed due process and that the orders sought were final in nature and against the public interest. Applying the Giella v Cassman Brown conditions, the Court held that interlocutory orders reversing a completed termination are not ordinarily granted, save where the termination defied a subsisting court order, following Gladys Boss Shollei v Judicial Service Commission and Evans Mumo Mwangangi. On recruitment, the Court followed Tom Otieno Odongo, holding it not in the public interest to halt recruitment for a strategic government agency, and found the balance of convenience favoured the Respondent. The application was declined, the interim orders of 14th November 2016 vacated, and costs were made in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimant satisfied the Giella v Cassman Brown conditions for interlocutory mandatory and prohibitory injunctive orders

Holding

The application failed; the prayers sought were final in effect, the balance of convenience favoured the Respondent, and no prima facie case with a probability of success justifying reversal of the termination at the interlocutory stage was established.

Reasoning

The Court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown test. Relying on Gladys Boss Shollei v Judicial Service Commission and Evans Mumo Mwangangi, it held that interlocutory orders reversing a completed termination are only available where the termination defied a subsisting court order. On recruitment, it followed Tom Otieno Odongo, holding that halting recruitment of a strategic government agency was against the public interest.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a termination of employment has occurred, the Court will not ordinarily grant an interlocutory order, whether styled as stay of termination or reinstatement, whose effect is to reverse the termination, except where the termination was effected in defiance of a subsisting court order
  • In employment matters, the right of an employee in the public service must be balanced against the public interest in the continued efficient functioning of a public body
  • Reinstatement is a substantive remedy that should normally issue after a full hearing and is not granted at the interlocutory stage

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claimant's application dated 14th November 2016 is declined
  2. 2.The interim orders granted on 14th November 2016 are vacated
  3. 3.The costs of the application will be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 45
  • Fair Administrative Action ActNot specified
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 27 and 47
  • Mwongozo Code of Governance for State CorporationsNot specified
  • Respondent's Staff Rules and Regulations, 2015Not specified

Cases cited (5)

  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Company Limited
    [1973] EA
  • Gladys Boss Shollei v Judicial Service Commission
    [2013] eKLR
  • Alfred Nyungu Kimungui v Bomas of Kenya
    Cause No 620 of 2013
  • Evans Mumo Mwangangi v Kitui County Public Service Board & another
    [2016] eKLR
  • Tom Otieno Odongo v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Labour Social Security & Services & National Social Security Fund Board of Trustees
    Cause No 1174 of 2013
Jurisdiction invoked
Not expressly stated; matter before the Employment and Labour Relations Court arising from a Notice of Motion dated 14th November 2016 in an employment claim

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jacinta Sekoh Ochieng v Kenya Pipeline Limited [2017] eKLR", Case Analysis (2017). Cause No 2301 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2017/2013/eng@2017-01-27

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