Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2020] KEELRC 766 (KLR)

Dinah Jemelly Kirwa v National Hospital Insurance Fund Board of Management [2020] KEELRC 766 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
26 June 2020
1,480 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court blocked hiring for the claimant's old job pending trial but refused to reinstate her before hearing full evidence.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, formerly Director Human Resource & Administration, brought a Notice of Motion dated 1.10.2019 under section 3 and 12(3) of the ELRC Act and Rule 17 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules seeking interlocutory injunctions restraining the respondent from recruiting anyone to her former position or harassing her, and reinstatement with back salary and benefits. She argued her dismissal of 16.9.2019 for gross misconduct was a nullity because the respondent's HR Policy and Procedure Manual required the CEO and Staff Advisory Committee to handle discipline, whereas the Board Chairperson initiated the process, interdicted her and appointed an ad hoc committee, contrary to Mwongozo. Counsel relied on Joseph Kiprono Koech v. County Government of Turkana and Macfoy v. United Africa Ltd. on the nullity of void acts. The respondent, through counsel, conceded the injunction in terms of an earlier consent order restraining advertising of the position, to preserve the status quo, but opposed reinstatement on the ground that it would determine the suit before trial and would prejudice ongoing investigations into an alleged loss of Kshs. 4 billion. The court granted the interlocutory injunction restraining the respondent from advertising, recruiting or hiring anyone to the position of Director HR and Administration pending trial, declined reinstatement and the anti-harassment order, and ordered costs of the application to be in the cause. The judgment was delivered on 26 June 2020 by Onesmus N. Makau J.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining recruitment to the claimant's former position

Holding

Granted, as the respondent conceded to the injunction in terms of the interim consent order to preserve the status quo pending trial.

Reasoning

The respondent did not oppose the injunction restraining advertising, recruiting or hiring for the position of Director HR and Administration, having already bound itself by a recorded consent order. In light of that concession the court saw no need to belabour the point and granted the interlocutory injunction to preserve the status quo pending hearing and determination of the suit.

p. 2
02

Whether reinstatement with back salary and benefits should be ordered at the interlocutory stage

Holding

Declined; reinstatement must await trial.

Reasoning

Reinstatement was also sought in the main suit and granting it would require taking and evaluating evidence. Even on the material already on record, granting the order at the interlocutory stage would effectively determine the suit before trial, so the court directed that the prayer await the trial of the suit.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An interlocutory injunction may be granted by consent to preserve the status quo pending trial.
  • An interlocutory reinstatement order that would determine the suit before trial should be refused and await trial.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The respondent or her agents are restrained from advertising, recruiting or hiring any other person to the position of Director HR and Administration pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
  2. 2.Costs of the application shall be in the cause.
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 3 & 12(3)(i)(ii)(iv) & (v) of the ELRC Act and Rule 17 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Dinah Jemelly Kirwa v National Hospital Insurance Fund Board of Management [2020] KEELRC 766 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/766/eng@2020-06-26

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