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. 1653 of 2015 (as cited from the relied-upon decision); present suit filed 26th March 2018 with notice of motion· [2019] KEELRC 1486 (KLR)

Dennis Leak Ojuok v Population Services Kenya [2019] KEELRC 1486 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
23 May 2019
MNMathews N. Nduma
963 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

An employee blocked from stopping his redundancy must argue his case at trial, because money compensation can fix any harm.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant filed a memorandum of claim and notice of motion seeking interim orders to restrain the respondent from proceeding with a redundancy commenced by notices dated 30th January 2019 and 15th February 2019. Interim orders were granted on 26th March 2019, and the application proceeded to inter partes hearing. The sole issue was whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements for an interim injunction. Relying on the principles in Giella vs Cassman Brown and Company Ltd as restated in the Bia Tosha Distributors decision, the court considered whether the applicant had a prima facie case, whether damages would be an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience. The respondent justified the redundancy on reduced donor funding (AHMC and CIFF funding ceasing by 31st May 2019, USAID funding reduced), restructuring, and the claimant's performance evaluation of 2018, asserting compliance with Section 40 of the Employment Act by issuing notices to the claimant and the labour officer. The court cautioned itself against predetermining disputed facts at the interlocutory stage but noted that the applicant had pleaded alternative remedies, including compensation of Kshs 2,754,576 (12 months' salary) and severance pay. It found the applicant unlikely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were refused and that the balance of convenience favoured the respondent implementing its managerial mandate subject to adherence to legal requirements. The application was dismissed with costs in the cause, the main claim remaining for trial.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for grant of an interim injunction

Holding

The applicant failed to satisfy the requirements; the injunction was refused

Reasoning

The court cautioned itself against predetermining disputes of fact at interlocutory stage. Although the redundancy declaration was arguable, the applicant had pleaded alternative remedies of compensation of Kshs 2,754,576 (12 months' salary) and severance pay, so damages would suffice. Balance of convenience favoured the respondent implementing its managerial mandate subject to adherence to legal requirements, given reduced donor funding.

p. 2
02

Whether the redundancy process was lawful and fair

Holding

Not determined at interlocutory stage; the issue was found arguable and left for trial

Reasoning

The court declined to predetermine contested factual issues such as the fairness of the redundancy. The respondent asserted compliance with Section 40 of the Employment Act by issuing notices to the claimant and the labour officer, citing donor funding cuts and restructuring. This contest remains for determination on the merits of the suit.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Requirements for grant of an interim injunction: prima facie case with probability of success; irreparable injury not adequately compensable by damages; balance of convenience if in doubt
  • Where alternative compensation remedies are pleaded, an interlocutory injunction may be refused for lack of irreparable harm

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for interim injunction is dismissed with costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 40

Cases cited (3)

  • Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers vs Bia Tosha Distributors Ltd
    (2016) eKLR
  • Giella vs Cassman Brown and Company Ltd
    (1973) E.A 358
  • Sargent vs Pate
    (1949) E.A.C.A 637
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment dispute; interim injunction under court's interlocutory powers; Section 40 of the Employment Act invoked

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Dennis Leak Ojuok v Population Services Kenya [2019] KEELRC 1486 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause No. 1653 of 2015 (as cited from the relied-upon decision); present suit filed 26th March 2018 with notice of motion. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1486/eng@2019-05-23

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