Juliana Mutisya & 2 others v National Gender and Equality Commission & another [2020] KEELRC 407 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court in Nairobi ended a long-running unfair termination case because reinstatement had already resolved it, but refused to strike out the claim itself.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the suit was moot after the Claimants' reinstatement, expiry of contract and resignations
Yes - there is no surviving dispute warranting a hearing of the main suit
The Court found that the mandatory injunction of 4th February 2015 reinstating the Claimants had the effect of entirely determining the claim, since the primary prayers (reinstatement, with compensation only in the alternative) had been granted. The subsequent expiry of the 1st Claimant's contract and the voluntary resignations of the 2nd and 3rd Claimants, coupled with the Court's earlier refusal of leave to amend, meant no justiciable controversy survived and hearing the suit would be an academic exercise.
Whether the Statement of Claim should be struck out under Order 2 Rule 15(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules
No - the suit as filed disclosed no ground for striking out; the redundancy arose from later events
Order 2 Rule 15(1) permits striking out where a pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action, is frivolous or vexatious, or is an abuse of process. At the time of filing, the claim was properly constituted; it was only the supervening events of reinstatement, resignation and expiry of contract that rendered the cause of action redundant. Striking out would therefore mischaracterise the pleadings, and the appropriate remedy was a declaration that the suit had abated.
Whether an interlocutory ruling can amount to a final determination of a suit
Normally not, but a mandatory injunction granted at the interlocutory stage may in some cases entirely determine the claim
The Claimants argued that a ruling on an interlocutory application is never a final decree. The Court accepted this is correct in most cases, but held that in exceptional cases a mandatory injunction - which determines the issues in dispute in a summary manner - can conclude the suit, as happened here where reinstatement was the principal relief sought and was granted in full.
Legal principles established
#- A suit may be declared abated where supervening events render the cause of action redundant even though the pleading itself does not qualify for striking out under Order 2 Rule 15(1)
- A mandatory injunction at the interlocutory stage can, in appropriate circumstances, have the effect of entirely determining a claim
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st Respondent's application to strike out the Statement of Claim is declined
- 2.It is declared that the issues raised in the suit have since been resolved so that there is no need to hear the case, and the suit is declared abated
- 3.Costs awarded to the Claimants against the 1st Respondent, limited to instructions fees, disbursements and court attendances only
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (claim for unfair termination, reinstatement and compensation)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Juliana Mutisya & 2 others v National Gender and Equality Commission & another [2020] KEELRC 407 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/407/eng@2020-10-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.