Allan Pamba v Kenya Hospital Association for anf on Behalf of the Nairobi Hospital [2020] KEELRC 232 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant established a prima facie case
Yes, a prima facie case was established based on the facts, including the claimant's questioning of his assessment and the grounds for termination
The court found the claimant had questioned his assessment for purposes of confirmation and had raised pertinent issues in his letter dated 29th September 2020 calling for examination by the court; the grounds for termination of the probationary contract were also questionable. However, the prima facie case alone did not secure the injunction.
Whether the claimant would suffer irreparable harm
Yes, the court agreed that termination of a person at the apex of his career at a premium hospital may cause irreparable harm not compensable by damages
The court accepted that the termination impacts on the claimant's future employability, and an opportunity at Nairobi Hospital, a premium hospital in the country and region, may never present itself again. Damages, though an alternative remedy, cannot remedy such loss.
Where the balance of convenience lies
The balance of convenience favoured the Respondent and militated against the injunction
Nairobi Hospital is a premium hospital whose CEO must work closely with the Board, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. The relationship between the claimant and the Chairman who supervised and appraised him was already strained. Forcing them to work together would be illogical and would hurt the organisation's performance.
Whether an injunction restraining implementation of a termination letter can issue at the interlocutory stage
No; such an injunction would in effect reinstate the claimant, a remedy available only upon a finding of unfair termination after a full hearing considering Section 49(4) factors
The court held that a termination letter takes effect upon issuance, ending the employment relationship, and only reinstatement or re-engagement under Section 49(3) of the Employment Act can reverse it. Reinstatement is not automatic and is guided by Section 49(4), including the common law principle against specific performance of contracts for service except in exceptional circumstances.
Legal principles established
#- A termination letter takes effect upon issuance and once it takes effect the employment relationship ends; the only way to reverse it is by an order of reinstatement or re-engagement under Section 49(3) of the Employment Act
- Reinstatement is not an automatic remedy in employment cases; Section 49(4) of the Employment Act sets out factors the court must consider before reinstating, re-engaging, or paying compensation
- In employment disputes at the interlocutory stage, the balance of convenience may weigh against an injunction where the relationship between the employee and the employer's leadership is irretrievably strained
Court orders
#- 1.The claimant's application dated 5th October 2020 seeking an interlocutory injunction restraining implementation of the termination letter is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the main suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (Sections 49, 50) and the Constitution (Articles 47, 50, 159(2)(d), 48 referenced)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Allan Pamba v Kenya Hospital Association for anf on Behalf of the Nairobi Hospital [2020] KEELRC 232 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No E614 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/232/eng@2020-11-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.