Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in judgment (Amended Notice of Motion dated 12th November, 2021)· [2022] KEELRC 758 (KLR)

Sophia Wanjiru Muchiri v Laikipia University [2022] KEELRC 758 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
21 February 2022
DNDavid Nderitu
3,034 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ordered a public university to repay salary deductions made without the employee's consent, confirming employers cannot unilaterally cut pay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, a Finance Officer of the Respondent re-deployed in November 2018 as Director, Resource Mobilization and Investment on an express assurance that all other terms of employment remained the same, moved the court by amended notice of motion dated 12th November, 2021 seeking interim mandatory and prohibitory injunctions after the Respondent by letter dated 25th February, 2021 withdrew allowances totalling Kshs.115,000/= per month with effect from March 2021. The Respondent defended the deductions as discretionary facilitative allowances payable only to members of the University Management Board, which the Claimant allegedly ceased to be upon re-deployment, and argued that granting the orders would determine the main cause at an interlocutory stage. The court framed three issues: whether a temporary mandatory injunction should issue for repayment of the deductions, whether a prohibitory injunction should issue against further reduction, and costs. Applying the Giella principles, the court found a prima facie case with high probability of success, holding that an employer and public body cannot unilaterally vary remuneration without consultation or legal basis, that the deductions offended constitutional and Employment Act provisions, and that the Respondent took over two years to detect the alleged error. Irreparable loss was found in the risk to the Claimant's home and her children's education, and the balance of convenience favoured the Claimant since she remained on payroll and any sums paid could be recovered. Special circumstances justified a mandatory injunction. The court granted both injunctions, ordered repayment of all deductions from 1st March 2021 to February 2022 by 30th March 2022, and ordered costs of the application to be in the cause. The main cause remains pending.

Key legal issues

#
01

Prima facie case

Holding

The Claimant established a prima facie case with high probability of success.

Reasoning

The Respondent unilaterally slashed allowances including commuting, entertainment, responsibility and phone allowances without explanation or any circular, regulation or policy support, over two years after the alleged error arose. The court found this offended Articles 42(1), 2(a) and 47 of the Constitution and Sections 10(5) and 17 of the Employment Act, and that the withdrawal was an unfair labour practice.

p. 3
02

Irreparable loss

Holding

Withholding the injunction would cause irreparable loss not compensable in damages.

Reasoning

The Claimant showed she was depleting savings, risked losing her home through failure to service the mortgage and inability to educate her children. Loss of a home or education cannot be easily quantified, and the court took judicial notice that Kshs.115,000/= per month materially affects a household's quality of life in hard economic times.

p. 4
03

Balance of convenience

Holding

Balance of convenience favours granting the interim orders.

Reasoning

The Claimant remains on the Respondent's payroll, so monies paid can be recovered if the Respondent's counter-claim succeeds. Further, the Claimant had a legitimate expectation based on the Respondent's express promise that her terms would not change, and she had reasonably fashioned her financial obligations on continuous pay.

p. 4
04

Mandatory injunction at interlocutory stage

Holding

Special circumstances existed warranting a mandatory injunction.

Reasoning

The court found an apparent breach of constitutional and statutory provisions; the Respondent took over two years to detect and rectify the alleged erroneous payment. Citing the authorities relied on by both sides, the court held mandatory injunctions may issue interlocutorily where there is a clear case of apparent violation of law.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer, particularly a public body, cannot unilaterally alter terms and conditions of employment to the disadvantage of an employee without consultation and without legal basis.
  • Remuneration is a term of contract that cannot be changed by the employer without consulting the employee.
  • A mandatory injunction may issue at the interlocutory stage where there are special circumstances, such as an apparent violation of the law or breach of clear legal rights.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Pending the hearing and determination of this cause a mandatory injunction issued ordering the Respondent to pay and remit to the Claimant all deductions made from her salary at the rate of Kshs.115,000/= per month from 1st March, 2021 up to and including February 2022
  2. 2.The said aggregate amount due to be paid on or before 30th March, 2022
  3. 3.Pending the hearing and determination of the main cause a temporary injunction issued restraining the Respondent from reducing the monthly remuneration of the Claimant by the sum of Kshs.115,000/= per month, or any other sum, or at all
  4. 4.Costs of the application to be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016Rule 17(1), (3) and (5)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 42(1), 2(a) and 47
  • Employment ActSections 2, 10(5) and 17
  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21)Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A and 27
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 3(1) and (2)

Cases cited (8)

  • Geilla Vs Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd
    (1973) EA 358
  • Mrao Ltd Vs First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 others
    (2003) eKLR
  • Nguruman LTD Vs Jan Bonde Nelson & 2 others
    (2003) KLR 125
  • Robert Mugo wa Karanja Vs Eco Bank Kenya Limited & Another
    (2019) eKLR
  • Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd Vs Samuel Mandere Ogeto
    (2017) eKLR
  • Kenya Breweries Ltd & Another Vs Washington O. Okeya
    (2002) eKLR
  • Nation Media Group and 2 Others Vs John Harun Mwau
    (2014) eKLR
  • Kuria Manyore & Another Vs Consolidated Bank of Kenya & 2 others
    (2010) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016, Rule 17(1), (3) and (5)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Sophia Wanjiru Muchiri v Laikipia University [2022] KEELRC 758 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in judgment (Amended Notice of Motion dated 12th November, 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/758/eng@2022-02-21

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