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 107 of 2018· [2018] KEELRC 414 (KLR)

Matthews Orinya Oyule & another v Kenya Revenue Authority [2018] KEELRC 414 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
20 December 2018
BOByram Ongaya
1,283 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment and Labour Relations Court refused to stop an employer's disciplinary process, ruling judges intervene only where the process breaks the law, the contract, or basic fairness.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimants, employees of the respondent on indefinite interdiction since 2010 following criminal charges before the Anti-corruption Court in Mombasa, moved the Court by notice of motion dated 21.11.2018 and filed on 23.11.2018 seeking a temporary injunction suspending show-cause letters dated 12.11.2018, and declarations that the letters were illegal, null, void and constituted unfair labour practices. They contended the letters were issued to defeat pending suits filed in 2017 concerning their seven-year interdiction, amounted to double jeopardy, and breached the respondent's Code of Conduct limiting interdiction to three months. The respondent, through the replying affidavit of Wilson Gaconi, opposed the motion, explaining that the show-cause letters followed conclusion of complex investigations undertaken by the Kenya Anti-corruption Commission, the Criminal Investigation Department and the police, and invited the claimants to a disciplinary hearing on 30.11.2018 under the Code of Conduct. The Court noted the claimants had not materially opposed that factual explanation. Following the principles in Fredrick Saunda Amolo, Evans Mumo Mwangangi and Geoffrey Mworia, the Court held it interferes only sparingly with an employer's disciplinary control, and only where the process contravenes the Constitution, legislation, the contract, or is manifestly unfair. It found no such breach established, held the claimants' grievances would not be rendered nugatory, and ruled that the declarations sought were final relief that could not issue at the interlocutory stage. The application was dismissed with costs in the cause on 20th December 2018.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Court may interfere with an ongoing internal disciplinary process

Holding

The Court will not interfere except where the employer is acting unlawfully, in breach of contract or manifestly unfairly; the claimants failed to establish such a case

Reasoning

Relying on Mbaru J in Fredrick Saunda Amolo and Ndolo J in Evans Mumo Mwangangi, and adopting the principles in Geoffrey Mworia, the Court held that restraint in interfering with disciplinary processes is premised on the employer acting lawfully and reasonably. The claimants did not controvert the respondent's explanation that the delay in investigations was due to complex investigations by external agencies beyond its control. The claimants' grievances about the interdiction would not be rendered nugatory and could be resolved internally or by a fresh cause of action.

p. 2
02

Whether nullity declarations can issue at the interlocutory stage

Holding

Prayers for declarations that the show-cause letters are null and void are final orders which cannot issue at the interlocutory stage

Reasoning

The Court found the declaratory prayers were framed as final relief and could not be granted on an interim application, particularly where the underlying justification for interference had failed on the merits.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The Court will sparingly interfere with an employer's exercise of human resource functions including disciplinary control, and only where the process contravenes the Constitution, legislation, the contract, or is manifestly unfair

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 21.11.2018 and filed on 23.11.2018 is dismissed with costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 2, 3(1), 20(4), 41(1), 47(1)
  • Fair Administrative Action Act No. 4 of 2015Sections 4(1), 7(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 51 rule 1; Order 40 rules 1, 2, 3
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap 21Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 63(e)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) RulesRules 17(3), (5), (6), 28(1)(b), (c), (g)
  • Penal CodeSection 127(1)

Cases cited (3)

  • Fredrick Saunda Amolo –Versus- Principal Namanga Mixed Day Secondary School and 2 others
    [2014]eKLR
  • Evans Mumo Mwangangi –Versus- Kitui County Public Service Board and Another
    [2016]eKLR
  • Geoffrey Mworia-Versus- Water Resources Management Authority and 2 others
    [2015]eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 41(1) of the Constitution of Kenya and the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, rule 17 and 28

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Matthews Orinya Oyule & another v Kenya Revenue Authority [2018] KEELRC 414 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No 107 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/414/eng@2018-12-18

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