Bernard Munanu v Equity Bank [K] Limited [2021] KEELRC 530 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed ex parte injunctions last only 14 days under Rule 17, set aside old interim orders, but spared the unfair dismissal claim from dismissal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Applicable procedural framework for injunctions in the E&LRC
Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not govern injunctions in the E&LRC; Rule 17 of the E&LRC [Procedure] Rules, 2016 does
The Claimant argued that Order 40 Rules 1 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules applied to injunctions in all civil cases including employment matters. The Court rejected this, holding that interlocutory orders in the E&LRC are regulated by Rule 17 of the E&LRC [Procedure] Rules, 2016, which limits ex parte injunctions to 14 days with a single extension.
Validity and duration of the interim orders
The interim orders, having been extended beyond the period permitted by Rule 17, were defective and had to be discharged
The orders were granted on 3rd February 2020 and lapsed around 17th February 2020. They were extended once on 20th February 2020 for a period which could not exceed 14 days. Thereafter the orders could not validly continue, and the fact that the Respondent did not file a reply could not be taken as confirmation of the orders.
Connection between interim relief and the substantive claim
No nexus existed between preservation of the mortgaged property and the claim for unfair termination
The Court found the interim preservation orders were unmatched to any prayer in the Claim. The Claim concerned unfair termination, privacy damages and notice pay, not the mortgaged property. The Claimant could not explain why preservation was necessary in an unfair termination claim.
Dismissal for want of prosecution
Dismissal declined; the delay was explained by the Covid-19 pandemic
The Claimant took no active steps after 9th March 2020, but the approximately one-year delay coincided with the public health situation that compelled courts to shut down or scale down operations. Judicial proceedings could not move at the pace contemplated by statutory timelines, so the Claimant was excused.
Legal principles established
#- Applications for temporary injunctions and other interlocutory orders before the E&LRC are governed by Rule 17 of the E&LRC [Procedure] Rules, 2016, not Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- An ex parte injunction under Rule 17 may be granted only once and not for more than 14 days, extendable only once by consent or court order for a further period not exceeding 14 days
- Interim orders must correspond to the prayers in the substantive claim
Court orders
#- 1.Interim orders granted to the Claimant on 3rd February 2020 are reviewed and set aside
- 2.The prayer for dismissal of the Claim for want of prosecution is declined
- 3.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court [Procedure] Rules, 2016, Rule 17; Civil Procedure Rules Order 40 raised by the Claimant but rejected as inapplicable
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bernard Munanu v Equity Bank [K] Limited [2021] KEELRC 530 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/530/eng@2021-11-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.