Navin Chander Raina v Social Services League, Mp Shah Hospital [2021] KEELRC 2088 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Prima facie case for interlocutory injunction
Not established because the fixed-term contract had lapsed and contained no renewal clause
The applicant was on a two-year contract (renewed once) expiring 30th September 2020. The claim that non-renewal was retaliatory or unlawful could not, on the face of the material, show an apparently infringed right, since a fixed-term contract lapses by effluxion of time and the contract contained no clause guaranteeing renewal. The court was not to hold a mini-trial of the merits.
Irreparable harm
Court accepted irreparable harm may arise but this alone did not justify the injunction
The claimant, an Indian expatriate earning about Kshs.2,120,000 monthly as head of surgery, might suffer loss not compensable in damages. However, since the injunction prayers had been overtaken by expiry of the contract and no prima facie case existed, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondent, the remaining Giella limbs could not salvage the application.
Balance of convenience and interim reinstatement
Balance of convenience militated against granting injunction orders
The claimant was no longer head of the respondent's department of surgery. Citing Anthony Omari Ongera v Teachers Service Commission, the court held that reinstatement at interlocutory stage is essentially a final, specific-performance type order grantable only in exceptional circumstances; none were shown here, so the balance of convenience favoured refusal.
Contempt of court
Contempt not proved to the requisite standard; the 30th September orders only required sustaining the existing employment relationship
The orders of 30th September restrained interference with the employment relationship pending inter-partes hearing. The contract lapsed on the very day the orders issued, and the parties had on 14th September 2020 consented to a consultancy engagement thereafter. The court did not order a new contract; the applicant adduced no proof to the quasi-criminal standard that the respondent breached the orders or the consent.
Legal principles established
#- Interlocutory injunctions are governed by the Giella v Cassman Brown principles: prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience if in doubt.
- The standard of proof in contempt/committal proceedings is higher than balance of probabilities but almost, not exactly, beyond reasonable doubt.
- Reinstatement at the interlocutory stage is final in nature and should only issue in exceptional circumstances.
Court orders
#- 1.Application dated 25th September 2020 is dismissed and the interim orders granted on 30th September 2020 are vacated
- 2.Application dated 16th October 2020 (contempt/committal) is dismissed with no order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 159(2)(d), Article 48 of the Constitution and Section 1B of the Civil Procedure Act invoked for electronic delivery; substantive jurisdiction under employment law (not expressly pleaded)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Navin Chander Raina v Social Services League, Mp Shah Hospital [2021] KEELRC 2088 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/2088/eng@2021-02-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.