Odhiambo v B Braun Medical Kenya Ltd (Cause E433 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 2972 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court refused to stop a dismissed employee's job from being filled, because he couldn't prove irreparable harm and hid that he still held the company laptop.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether an interlocutory injunction could lie to restrain termination of employment already effected
No - the first limb of the prayer could not be granted because it sought to restrain a concluded act; only the second limb (restraining filling of the position) remained active
The court observed it is common ground that the claimant's employment was terminated by letter dated May 2, 2023, and that his claim for reinstatement in the main suit is itself an admission that no employment relationship subsists. An injunction restrains threatened or ongoing breaches, not completed acts, so the first limb of prayer 3 was incapable of being injuncted.
Whether the applicant demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success
Partially - the applicant showed an arguable case and arguably a prima facie case, but the court proceeded to consider the remaining Giella limbs
The claimant alleged vague and unfounded grounds of dismissal and that his representations were not considered. While these could only be ascertained at the hearing, the documents on record suggested some allegations had supportive evidence, persuading the court that an arguable, arguably prima facie, case existed under the Mrao formulation.
Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury not compensable in damages
No - the applicant did not particularise irreparable injury and any loss was quantifiable in monetary terms
Although the claimant deposed he had no source of income and was his family's bread-winner, he did not depose that he stood to suffer irreparable injury or particularise its nature. The court held he failed to demonstrate injury that could not be quantified in monetary terms, failing the Nguruman and Kogo principles.
Whether the applicant came to equity with clean hands
No - the applicant did not disclose he was still holding the Respondent's laptop claimed in the counter-claim, disentitling him to equitable relief
Relying on Mohamed Shally Sese and John Njue Nyaga, the court held that a party seeking discretionary equitable relief must make full material disclosure and do equity. The applicant sought to restrain recruitment of his replacement while withholding the Respondent's laptop valued at USD 1,260, which was non-disclosure frowned upon by equity.
Legal principles established
#- The conditions for grant of an interlocutory injunction are a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury not compensable in damages, and, if in doubt, balance of convenience (Giella v Cassman Brown)
- An injunction restrains threatened, ongoing or future acts, not acts already concluded
- Equitable relief is refused to a party who comes with unclean hands or makes non-disclosure of material facts
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's Notice of Motion dated May 22, 2023 is dismissed
- 2.Costs shall be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; application under the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016 (rule 17(5) invoked by respondent)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Odhiambo v B Braun Medical Kenya Ltd (Cause E433 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 2972 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Cause No E433 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2972/eng@2023-11-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.