Ngige v Samsung Electronics EA Limited (Cause E273 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 1985 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that a dismissed employee must show exceptional circumstances before a court can order them back to work while their case is still pending.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction to grant interlocutory reinstatement
While the court may have power to grant reinstatement after an inter partes hearing, exceptional circumstances must be shown; none were made out here.
The applicant invoked sections 49 and 50 of the Employment Act, section 12(3) of the ELRC Act and Rule 17 of the ELRC Procedure Rules to argue jurisdiction to reinstate pending trial. The respondent countered that reinstatement amounts to specific performance of an employment contract, grantable only in exceptional cases, and that such relief cannot issue provisionally. The court held that exceptional circumstances must be laid before interlocutory reinstatement and found they were not demonstrated.
Mandatory injunction at interlocutory stage
The orders sought were in substance mandatory injunctions, which are only granted at interlocutory stage in clear cases and special circumstances; the threshold was not met.
The respondent argued, relying on Stephen Kipkebut and Idriss Aden Mukhtar, that reinstating a dismissed employee or restraining recruitment to his former position amounts to a mandatory injunction granted only in very clear cases and special circumstances. The court accepted that the claimant had not made out grounds for the prayer at the interlocutory stage and left the remedy to be determined after trial.
Effect of the position having been filled
The respondent's filling of the position (the division having been renamed from IM to Mobile Experience (MX)) rendered the injunction orders effectively overtaken by events.
The respondent deponed that the claimant's position had been filled and that the division name changed from IM to MX in 2021, making the applicant's claim that a different position was filled misleading. The court nonetheless disposed of the application principally on the absence of exceptional circumstances for interlocutory reinstatement.
Legal principles established
#- After termination of employment, exceptional circumstances must be demonstrated before an order of reinstatement can be made at the interlocutory stage pending the hearing of the main suit
- Reinstatement is effectively specific performance of a contract of employment and is a remedy properly granted upon full hearing of the claim
Court orders
#- 1.Application dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
- 3.Parties to take directions on the disposal of the suit immediately after the ruling
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 12(3) and 50 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; section 49 of the Employment Act; Rule 17 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2016
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Moffat v Kenya Revenue Authority (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E089 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2290 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2290 (KLR)31 Jul 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ngige v Samsung Electronics EA Limited (Cause E273 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 1985 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in excerpt (ELRC, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1985/eng@2023-07-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.