Sarah Nduta Thenya & 4 others v Edelvale Trust Jamaa Home & Mission Hospital [2018] KEELRC 2337 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court blocked the nurses' firings because the employer mailed termination letters to its own address, proving the workers were never properly notified.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicants had established a prima facie case with a probability of success for interlocutory injunctive relief
The court found the Applicants had not been notified of any termination; the ex parte injunction remained in force and was confirmed.
Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and the triable-issues approach in Idris Aden Mukhtar, the court examined the alleged termination letters. They were posted to the Respondent's own postal address with no certificate of posting or evidence of receipt by the Applicants, contrary to the indication in the suspension letters that decisions would be communicated through registered addresses. The court therefore held the Applicants had never been notified of termination, meaning the interim orders were still live and the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the injunction rather than allowing termination and potentially reversing it at trial.
Balance of convenience in an employment injunction application
The balance tilted in favour of injuncting termination rather than allowing it and possibly undoing it later.
The court reasoned that where termination has not yet taken effect, the balance of convenience lies in preserving the employment relationship pending trial. The Respondents' submissions relying on authorities where termination had already taken effect were distinguished as inapplicable to the facts.
Legal principles established
#- Termination letters posted to the employer's own address, without certificate of posting or evidence of receipt, do not constitute notification of termination to the employee
Court orders
#- 1.The ex parte orders of 7th September 2017 restraining the Respondent from terminating the services of the 1st to 3rd Applicants are confirmed
- 2.All withheld salaries be released to the 1st to 3rd Applicants
- 3.The Respondent to continue paying the Claimants' salaries when they fall due until the claim is heard and determined
- 4.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 17(3), (4), (5) and (6) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Procedure Rules; Section 12(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; Sections 1A, 1B, 31 and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sarah Nduta Thenya & 4 others v Edelvale Trust Jamaa Home & Mission Hospital [2018] KEELRC 2337 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Notice of Motion dated 7th September 2017 (Employment and Labour Relations Court). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/2337/eng@2018-02-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.