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. 62 of 2014· [2018] KEELRC 2089 (KLR)

Alfred Mincha Ndubi v County Assembly Nyamira County [2018] KEELRC 2089 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
3 May 2018
MOMaureen OnyangoMNMathews Nderi Nduma
1,611 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

#

The Employment Court dismissed a worker's bid to be installed in a county job, holding his own prosecution — not the employer — caused the loss.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, Alfred Mincha Ndubi, was employed by the respondent, the County Assembly of Nyamira, as Sergeant At Arms by letter dated 19th November 2013, on a six-month probation, to report on 1st December 2013. He reported for duty on 2nd December 2013 and was undergoing orientation when he was arrested and charged with assaulting a Member of the County Assembly. He was barred from performing his duties; his demand letters went unanswered; a Board meeting on 24th January 2014 ended in disarray after he declined to answer questions on the pending criminal matter. He was acquitted on 15th December 2014, after filing suit. He sought a mandatory injunction to be installed in office, salaries and allowances from appointment to judgment, general damages, costs and interest. The respondent admitted the employment but contended the offer was subject to vetting, which the claimant frustrated, and that the office had since been filled. Justice Maureen Onyango treated the facts as undisputed and framed the sole issue as whether the claimant was entitled to the prayers sought. Applying the Section 49(4) Employment Act factors for reinstatement, the court held that the claimant's own conduct and pending prosecution, not the respondent, caused his predicament; he had never discharged the functions of the office; and mandatory injunction in employment is reinstatement, disfavoured save in exceptional circumstances. All three prayers failed, and the entire suit was dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Mandatory injunction/reinstatement

Holding

Refused - the remedy was not appropriate given the claimant's conduct, the pending criminal charges at the time of filing suit, and that he had not performed the functions of the office

Reasoning

The court applied the Section 49(4) Employment Act factors for reinstatement. The claimant had only just reported for orientation when arrested for assaulting a Member of the same County Assembly, and the case was still pending when suit was filed. The respondent did not cause his situation, and the office was said to have since been filled.

p. 3
02

Payment of salaries and allowances

Holding

Refused - no services were rendered

Reasoning

The uncontested facts showed the claimant never performed the functions of his office and was prevented by circumstances for which the respondent was not responsible. Without rendering services, no entitlement to payment arises.

p. 3
03

General damages

Holding

Refused - no liability on the part of the respondent

Reasoning

Since the respondent bore no responsibility for the claimant's loss of employment, no damages could lie against it; damages compensate injuries caused by the party responsible for the wrong.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A mandatory injunction in an employment matter in the context sought is a reinstatement, and the court must consider the factors in Section 49(4) of the Employment Act, including the common law principle against specific performance of a contract for service except in very exceptional circumstances
  • General damages are payable only by the person responsible for the injury or wrong suffered

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The entire suit is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party shall bear its own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 49(4)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Alfred Mincha Ndubi v County Assembly Nyamira County [2018] KEELRC 2089 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No. 62 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/2089/eng@2018-05-03

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