Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2018] KEELRC 1028 (KLR)

Jonathan Kipchoge v Sylvester Kimaiyo & 2 others [2018] KEELRC 1028 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
4 October 2018
MNMathews N. Nduma
582 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

#

A Kenyan employment court refused to temporarily block a manager's dismissal, ruling the real questions about his contract must wait for a full trial.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, formerly Human Resource Manager, filed a Notice of Motion on 13th April 2018 seeking an interim injunction to restrain the Respondent from implementing a notice of termination dated 7th March 2018 and from recruiting a replacement pursuant to an advertisement dated 9th March 2018. He asserted that the termination was unlawful and unfair because his contract was due to expire on 31st March 2019, and sought declaratory findings on unfair termination, discrimination and unfair labour practice, reinstatement, and payment of contractual dues, by a Statement of Claim filed simultaneously. The Respondent opposed through a Replying Affidavit of Prof. Sylvester Kimaiyo, asserting that the Claimant served on a fixed term contract from 22nd August 2016 to 31st December 2017, that renewal was not automatic, and that a four-month extension had been granted on the Claimant's personal request while he awaited confirmation as Deputy County Secretary of the County Government of Vihiga, with his last day of office being 30th April 2018. Applying the Giella v Cassman Brown principles, the court held that the Claimant had failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success, that the contract-duration facts were contentious and required full ventilation at trial, and that an injunction would serve no purpose where the termination had actualised and a replacement had been made, while reinstatement and terminal dues remained available at the trial. The Claimant's application and the Respondent's application dated 4th May 2018 were both dismissed, and the court directed transfer of the matter to Eldoret for hearing of the main suit. No costs order was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicant met the Giella v Cassman Brown criteria for an interim injunction

Holding

The application failed as no prima facie case with a probability of success was established

Reasoning

The court applied the settled Giella v Cassman Brown principles for interim injunctions. The facts concerning the duration of the contract of service were highly contentious between the parties, with the Claimant asserting a contract running to 31st March 2019 and the Respondent asserting a fixed term ending 31st December 2017 with a four-month extension. Such contested facts required full ventilation at trial and could not ground interim relief.

p. 1
02

Whether interim relief was practical where termination had already taken effect

Holding

An injunction would serve no purpose where termination has actualised and a replacement has been made

Reasoning

The court observed that the termination had actualised and the position already filled, so an interim injunction restraining implementation of the notice or the recruitment would be futile. The Claimant's substantive remedies of reinstatement to the position of Human Resource Manager or payment of all terminal dues in the alternative remained available at trial upon proof on a balance of probabilities.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The test for an interim injunction is as laid down in Giella v Cassman Brown, requiring a prima facie case with a probability of success
  • An interim injunction cannot restore a termination that has already taken effect and a replacement been made; reinstatement and terminal dues are matters for trial

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claimant's Notice of Motion dated and filed on 13th April 2018 is dismissed
  2. 2.The Respondent's application dated 4th May 2018 is dismissed
  3. 3.The matter is transferred to Eldoret for the hearing and determination of the main suit

Authorities

#

Cases cited (1)

  • Giella v Cassman Brown Limited
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (statute not expressly cited in the ruling)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

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, "Jonathan Kipchoge v Sylvester Kimaiyo & 2 others [2018] KEELRC 1028 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1028/eng@2018-10-04

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