Nyaga v Chandaria Industries Limited (Cause E031 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1065 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to stop an ex-employer from giving adverse references because the dismissed employee couldn't show harm that money couldn't fix.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the application meets the threshold for an interlocutory injunction under Giella v Cassman Brown
Prima facie case demonstrated, but irreparable injury and balance of convenience were not, so the application failed
Despite finding a prima facie case, the court held the applicant gave no particulars of the unlawful conduct, did not allege he had applied for employment or that adverse information was likely to be released, made no reference to irreparable injury, and failed to demonstrate comparative inconvenience. The court therefore declined the restraining order and dismissed the motion.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must demonstrate a prima facie case, irreparable injury not compensable by damages, and, if in doubt, the balance of convenience
- Irreparable injury is harm substantial and not adequately remedied or quantifiable in monetary terms
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 16th January 2024 is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3, 12 and 13 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyaga v Chandaria Industries Limited (Cause E031 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1065 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Cause No E031 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1065/eng@2024-04-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.