Linda Were v Sanlam Life Insurance Limited (Formerly Known as Pan Africa Life Assurance Limited) & another [2020] KEELRC 442 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court refused to protect a former employee's staff mortgage benefits, warning that delays and claims against absent third parties weaken injunction applications.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a prima facie case was established for interlocutory injunctive relief
No prima facie case was established against the Respondents
Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, the court found the claimant admitted the loan facility was with a third party not joined to the suit; she could not show how the Respondents could compel the financier to apply staff rates after her employment ended. The HR Policy Manual she relied on had been amended before she exited employment, and the Respondents had already supplied the LTRS accounts she sought.
Whether the retrenchment cover orders could issue
The orders could not issue for lack of evidence that the cover was in place
The claimant alleged the Respondents cancelled the Group Mortgage Assurance retrenchment cover of nine months, while the Respondents maintained it had merely lapsed per the Master Policy and that the renewal letter of 5th December 2018 was erroneous. The court found no evidence that the cover remained in place, so there was nothing to stay or preserve.
Whether delay defeated the application
The delay from November 2019 termination to June 2020 filing was unexplained and weighed against relief
The court noted the employment terminated on 12th November 2019 but the suit was not filed until June 2020. On allegedly grave violations, the applicant offered no explanation for the delay, which the court treated as a further reason the discretionary interlocutory prayers were not merited.
Whether the LTRS accounts could be ordered
The prayer was unnecessary as the accounts had already been supplied
The Respondents deponed that the Claimant's LTRS accounts had been provided in the Replying Affidavit, and the claimant did not deny this. The court also noted confidentiality objections to producing other members' accounts, and that allocation of awards under the LTRS was discretionary per its terms and conditions.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for interlocutory injunctive relief must establish a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable harm not compensable by damages, and failing which the balance of convenience applies
- A court ought not to issue orders against a party that are incapable of enforcement, particularly where the subject contract involves a third party not before the court
- Unexplained delay in approaching the court on allegedly grave violations weighs against the grant of discretionary relief
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 17th June 2020 was dismissed in its entirety
- 2.Costs will be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3 and 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act; Rule 17 of the Employment and Labour Relations (Procedure) Rules 2016; Order 20 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010; Article 159(2)(d) and 48 of the Constitution (on delivery of judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Atak v Judicial Service Commission (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 204 of 2015) [2025] KEELRC 245 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 245 (KLR)30 Jan 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Linda Were v Sanlam Life Insurance Limited (Formerly Known as Pan Africa Life Assurance Limited) & another [2020] KEELRC 442 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 17th June 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/442/eng@2020-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.