Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the excerpt (notice of motion dated December 8, 2021)· [2022] KEELRC 4155 (KLR)

Katieno v University of Eastern Africa Baraton (Cause E039 of 2021) [2022] KEELRC 4155 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
29 July 2022
3,529 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court refused to stop a university redeploying an employee, holding that redeployment is management's discretion unless a strong case is shown.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, an employee of the University of Eldoret, moved the court by notice of motion dated December 8, 2021 seeking temporary restraining orders against the respondent from victimising, harassing, discriminating against, intimidating, terminating or subjecting him to disciplinary action, and a stay of the decision in the respondent's letter of November 16, 2021 redeploying him from tutorial fellow to farm manager. The application was supported by the claimant's affidavit recounting a summary dismissal of September 17, 2021 without a hearing, an appeal heard on thirty minutes' notice, a two-month suspension on half pay exceeding the twenty-eight days permitted by the staff handbook, disciplinary proceedings before the Council sub-committee despite his objections to the Vice Chancellor's presence, and a consequent redeployment on new and allegedly discriminatory terms including daily sign-in requirements. The respondent, through the Vice Chancellor Professor Philip Kimely Maiyo, deponed that the claimant had a history of indiscipline, absconded duty for approximately three weeks leaving students untaught, and that dismissal, suspension, appeal and redeployment processes were procedural. It contended the application was overtaken by events since the claimant was later redeployed to internal auditor and accepted that role. The court held that redeployment is a management discretion with which courts are reluctant to interfere, that the claimant compromised his complaint by accepting the internal auditor position, and that he failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with probability of success. The application was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claimant established a prima facie case with probability of success for interlocutory relief

Holding

No prima facie case was demonstrated; the redeployment complaint was compromised by the claimant's acceptance of the internal auditor role and redeployment is a management discretion

Reasoning

The court framed the interlocutory test as whether a prima facie case with chances of success exists and whether damages would be inadequate. On the evidence, the respondent had reviewed the farm manager redeployment and moved the claimant to internal auditor, which he accepted. The claimant also did not show that tutorial fellow was the only role for which he possessed skills. Accordingly, the interlocutory orders could not issue.

p. 7
02

Whether redeployment from tutorial fellow to farm manager was discriminatory and a demotion warranting court interference

Holding

Redeployment is a management discretion that the court is reluctant to interfere with, and the claimant did not demonstrate he lacked skills for other roles

Reasoning

The claimant argued the two positions required different qualifications and that he never trained as a farm manager. The court held that transfer, redeployment or redesignation lies within management discretion, and the claimant failed to show tutorial fellow was the only position he could hold, especially given the respondent's accusations that he absented himself from classes for a considerable period leaving students stranded.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • Transfer, redeployment or redesignation of an employee is a management discretion with which courts are reluctant to interfere

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the claimant's notice of motion dated December 8, 2021 with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsection 10(5)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment dispute (interlocutory notice of motion); no specific provision quoted

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Katieno v University of Eastern Africa Baraton (Cause E039 of 2021) [2022] KEELRC 4155 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the excerpt (notice of motion dated December 8, 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/4155/eng@2022-07-29

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