Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No E043 of 2021· [2022] KEELRC 282 (KLR)

Ann Wangari Mbatia v Kirinyaga Water & Sanitation Company (Kiriwasco) [2022] KEELRC 282 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
23 March 2022
DMD.K.Njagi Marete
776 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to reinstate a procurement manager whose fixed-term contract expired naturally, confirming such contracts carry no automatic expectation of renewal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an interlocutory application dated 29th July, 2021 by a Claimant in an employment matter before the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri, seeking urgent interim injunctions restraining the Respondent from advertising for, recruiting or filling the position of Procurement Manager, and interim orders maintaining or reinstating her as procurement manager pending hearing of the main suit. The Respondent opposed the application through a Replying Affidavit dated 1st November, 2021, describing it as misconceived, frivolous and an abuse of process. The Respondent explained that the Claimant was employed on 2nd August, 2018 on a three-year fixed term contract which expired on 2nd August, 2021; that no discussions had been held to extend the contract, any extension requiring Board sanction and formal communication; that there was no obligation to give reasons for non-renewal; and that the application had been overtaken by events, with reinstatement unavailable because the contract ended by effluxion of time and not by unlawful or unfair termination. The Respondent relied on Giella vs Cassman Brown & Co.Ltd and on Margaret A.Ochieng v Nairobi Water Conservation and Pipeline Corporation, which restated the principle that fixed term contracts carry no expectation of renewal. The court, D.K.Njagi Marete J, held that the Claimant had not satisfied the Giella requirements, that her case rested on a fixed term contract raising complicated trial issues, and that the Respondent's case overwhelmed hers. The application was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs. The main suit, if any, remains pending.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the interlocutory injunction and reinstatement orders sought should issue

Holding

The application fails because the Claimant did not satisfy the Giella vs Cassman Brown criteria; her case rests on a fixed term contract that expired on its own terms.

Reasoning

The court applied the Giella test. The Respondent showed the Claimant was employed on a three-year fixed term contract which expired on 2nd August, 2021 with no expectation or discussion of renewal, any extension requiring Board sanction and formal communication. The court found the Respondent's case overwhelmed the Claimant's, that no prima facie case was demonstrated, and that the claim founded on a fixed term contract raised complicated trial issues unsuitable for determination interlocutorily. The application was accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Fixed term contracts carry no expectation of renewal
  • An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must show a prima facie case with a probability of success; otherwise irreparable injury; failing which the balance of convenience decides

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 29th July, 2021 is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the application

Authorities

#

Cases cited (4)

  • Giella vs Cassman Brown & Co.Ltd
    (1973) EA 358
  • Margaret A.Ochieng v Nairobi Water Conservation and Pipeline Corporation
    (2014) eKLR
  • George Onyango v The Board of Directors Numerical Machining Complex Limited & Others
    (2014) eKLR
  • Bernard Wanjohi Muriuki v Kirinyaga Water and Sanitation Company Limited & Others
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction (not expressly stated in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ann Wangari Mbatia v Kirinyaga Water & Sanitation Company (Kiriwasco) [2022] KEELRC 282 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Cause No E043 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/282/eng@2022-04-23

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