Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherNot stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 18th October 2017)· [2018] KEELRC 1152 (KLR)

Joseph Munagi Keriko v Council of Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture &Technology; & 3 others [2018] KEELRC 1152 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
24 September 2018
HWHellen Wasilwa
1,617 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 refused to suspend JKUAT's Deputy Vice-Chancellor before trial, ruling that allegations of nepotism need full evidence, not interim orders.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is an interlocutory ruling by the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Hellen Wasilwa J) on a Notice of Motion dated 18th October 2017 filed by Prof. Joseph Mungai Keriko, a claimant challenging the appointment of the 4th Respondent as Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research, Production and Extension) at JKUAT. The application, brought under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 12 and 20 of the ELRC Act, sought priority hearing and suspension of the 4th Respondent's occupancy of the DVC office pending determination of the application and the main suit, on grounds of nepotism, bias and an irregular recruitment process. The Respondents opposed, contending that the recruitment was professional and independent (the claimant was scored last of seven interviewed candidates), that the orders were overtaken by events since the 4th Respondent had been in office over a year, and that the orders would cause hardship to JKUAT. The 3rd Respondent (Cabinet Secretary) also argued he was neither the employer nor a proper party. The court held that the orders sought were tantamount to dismissing an office holder, mirrored relief in the main suit, and required evidence at trial; they would also have grave repercussions on JKUAT's operations. The court declined all interim orders, directed the parties to the hearing of the main claim, and ordered costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether interim relief suspending the 4th Respondent's occupation of the DVC office should issue

Holding

Interim orders were declined; the applicant was directed to the hearing of the main claim

Reasoning

The orders sought were tantamount to dismissing an occupant from office and mirrored the relief in the main suit. Verification of allegations of nepotism and irregular recruitment would require evidence at trial. The orders would also have grave repercussions on JKUAT's operations as a learning institution, and the appointment had been in place for over a year, so 'suspension of occupancy' was unworkable.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A court will not grant orders that will result in hardship
  • Interlocutory orders that would effectively determine a suit or require evidence to be tested should be declined pending trial

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Interim orders sought in the application declined
  2. 2.Parties directed to proceed with the hearing of the main claim
  3. 3.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder VI Rule 3
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSections 12 & 20
  • Universities ActSection 35(1)(a)(v)
  • Public Service Commission Regulationsnot specified

Cases cited (3)

  • Josephat K. Mwatela Vs Technical University of Mombasa Council and 2 Others
    ELC Cause No. 352 of 2016
  • Republic Vs CS Ministry of Education
    Nairobi High Court Judicial Review Misc. Civil Application No. 52 of 2017
  • Shitakha Vs Mwamodo & 4 Others
    [1986] KLR 445
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21), Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and Sections 12 & 20 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act

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, "Joseph Munagi Keriko v Council of Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture &Technology; & 3 others [2018] KEELRC 1152 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 18th October 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1152/eng@2018-09-24

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