Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedPetition dated 31st July 2018 (Petitioners' Notice of Motion dated 31st July 2018)· [2018] KEELRC 148 (KLR)

Elijah Muriithi Muchiri & 12 others v County Government of Laikipia & another [2018] KEELRC 148 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
13 December 2018
NMNzioki wa Makau
614 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

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled that dismissed workers cannot get reinstatement early in a case — they must wait for the full hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioners, former casual employees of the 1st Respondent (save for the 10th Petitioner, employed by the defunct Municipal Council of Nanyuki in 2002), moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 31st July 2018 seeking interim orders: stay of termination letters dated 19th and 25th July 2018, an injunction restraining the Respondents from replacing them, and reinstatement pending the hearing and determination of their Petition. They asserted their termination was unfair and unlawful, with no reasons given, no notice, no hearing, and no severance pay. The application was unopposed. The court declined the relief on two grounds. First, citing Olive Mwihaki Mugenda v Okiya Omtata (as restated in Vivo Energy Kenya Ltd v Maloba Petrol Station and Stephen Kipkebut v Naftali Ogola), the court held that an order granting a major relief claimed in the suit ought not to be granted at an interlocutory stage; reinstatement was such a final remedy. Second, applying the principles in East African Industries v Trufoods as approved in Giella v Cassman Brown (prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury not compensable by damages, and balance of convenience), the court found the threshold unmet because the Petitioners' ultimate remedies include reinstatement and compensation, which would adequately redress them if successful at the full hearing. The motion was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether final relief (reinstatement) may be granted at an interlocutory stage

Holding

Final remedies cannot be granted at the interlocutory stage; the court declined to grant reinstatement and related interim orders

Reasoning

The court restated the Court of Appeal's position in Olive Mwihaki Mugenda v Okiya Omtata, applying Vivo Energy Kenya Ltd v Maloba Petrol Station and Stephen Kipkebut v Naftali Ogola, that an order granting a major relief claimed in the suit should not be granted at an interlocutory stage. Reinstatement sought by the Petitioners amounted to the substantive relief of the Petition.

p. 2
02

Whether the Petitioners satisfied the threshold for injunctive relief

Holding

The Petitioners did not meet the Giella v Cassman Brown threshold

Reasoning

The court set out the three guiding principles from East African Industries v Trufoods as approved in Giella v Cassman Brown: prima facie case with probability of success; irreparable injury not adequately compensable by damages; and balance of convenience where the court is in doubt. It found the threshold unmet because the Petitioners' remedies upon success include reinstatement and compensation, making damages an adequate remedy.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An order which results in the granting of a major relief claimed in the suit ought not to be granted at an interlocutory stage
  • The three Giella v Cassman Brown principles for temporary injunctions: prima facie case, irreparable injury not compensable by damages, and balance of convenience where in doubt

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 31st July 2018 is dismissed with no order as to costs

Authorities

#

Cases cited (5)

  • Olive Mwihaki Mugenda & Another v Okiya Omtata Okoiti & 4 Others
    [2016] eKLR
  • Vivo Energy Kenya Limited v Maloba Petrol Station Limited & 3 Others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Stephen Kipkebut t/a Riverside Lodge and Rooms v Naftali Ogola
    [2009] eKLR
  • East African Industries v Trufoods
    [1972] EA 420
  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd.
    (1973) E.A. 358
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court original jurisdiction (petition for unfair termination); specific provision not cited in the judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Elijah Muriithi Muchiri & 12 others v County Government of Laikipia & another [2018] KEELRC 148 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Petition dated 31st July 2018 (Petitioners' Notice of Motion dated 31st July 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/148/eng@2018-12-13

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