Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNotice of motion application dated 16th August 2021 (Claimant's suit; application by Defendant/Applicant)· [2022] KEELRC 462 (KLR)

John Munene Stephen v Kenya Wildlife Service & another [2022] KEELRC 462 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
21 March 2022
1,606 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

#

Kenya's Employment Court stopped interim orders that forced KWS to pay a ranger, warning courts shouldn't grant final relief before a full hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi, delivered virtually on 21st March 2022 by Dr. Jacob Gakeri, J, on a notice of motion dated 16th August 2021. The Defendant/Applicant, Vincent Makan Samoo, sought a stay of the injunctive orders issued on 5th July 2021, which had directed the Respondent (following an ex parte application dated 31st May 2021) to pay the Claimant his field allowances and monthly salary from June 2019 pending the hearing of the claim. The Applicant deponed that the Claimant, a ranger employed by the 1st Respondent, resumed duty on 31st May 2019 but absconded from 1st June 2019 and never returned, that disciplinary attempts failed because he disappeared, and that salary was lawfully stopped. He contended the ex parte orders were secured by misrepresentation and were a gross abuse of the Court's process. On 27th October 2021 the Court had already stayed the orders pending determination of the application. The Respondent also indicated it had dispatched a cheque of Kshs.447,293 for salary and field allowances in compliance with a penal notice. Though directed to file written submissions, neither party did so, and the application remained unopposed. The Court framed a single issue: whether the application was merited. Noting that the affidavit raised serious questions about the Claimant's conduct and non-disclosure of material facts when the ex parte orders were obtained, and citing the dangers of interlocutory orders granting a major relief, the Court allowed the application as prayed and ordered costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ex parte injunctive orders of 5th July 2021 should be stayed pending trial

Holding

The application for stay was allowed as prayed and unopposed

Reasoning

The Court found that the Claimant's own supporting documentation in the Respondent's affidavit raised material questions about his employment status and non-disclosure when the ex parte orders were obtained. The Court was mindful that the interlocutory orders granted a major relief in a compensatory employment claim. The application was also unopposed and no submissions were filed against it.

p. 3
02

Whether interim orders amounting to final relief are proper

Holding

The Court cautioned against such orders, relying on the Mugenda and Khetia Drapers authorities

Reasoning

The Court cited authority to the effect that interlocutory orders should not effectively dispose of the claim in favour of one party before a hearing on the merits, particularly in employment claims where remedies are predominantly compensatory and adequately provided for by law.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Interlocutory orders should not be granted where their effect is to deliver a major substantive relief before the claim is heard and determined on merit
  • Non-disclosure of material facts when seeking ex parte interim orders may lead to those orders being disturbed

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion application dated 16th August 2021 is granted as prayed, including stay of the injunctive orders issued on 5th July 2021 (already stayed on 27th October 2021 pending determination)
  2. 2.Costs shall be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Articles 31, 40, 48, 159(2)(d)
  • Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya)Sections 1A, 1B, 63
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrders 1, 40, 51; Order 21 Rule 1
  • Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013not specified (discipline of uniformed service officers absenting themselves over 21 days)

Cases cited (2)

  • Olive Mwihaki Mugenda & another v Okiya Omtata Okoiti & 4 others
    [2016] eKLR
  • Khetia Drapers Limited v Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers
    [2018] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 31 and 40 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010; Sections 1A, 1B and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act; Orders 1, 40 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "John Munene Stephen v Kenya Wildlife Service & another [2022] KEELRC 462 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Notice of motion application dated 16th August 2021 (Claimant's suit; application by Defendant/Applicant). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/462/eng@2022-03-21

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