Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2024] KEELRC 1991 (KLR)

Jakaiti v Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) (Cause E265 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1991 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
29 July 2024
JGJACOB GAKERI
2,035 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nairobi employment court refused to block recruitment for a dismissed employee's former job, because she showed no loss that money couldn't fix.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi, delivered virtually by Dr. Jacob Gakeri, Judge, on 29th July 2024, on the Claimant Rebecca Atyang Jakaiti's Notice of Motion dated 11th April 2024. The Claimant, formerly Principal Administration Officer Grade 4 (converted to Assistant Director Administration), was dismissed on 14th December 2023 following disciplinary proceedings arising from incidents involving two motor vehicles. She filed appeals and sought an injunction restraining the Respondent from advertising, recruiting or interviewing for the position of Assistant Director pending determination of the suit. The application was brought under Articles 10 and 50 of the Constitution and Sections 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. The Respondent opposed, arguing the application was defective, the dismissal was procedural, final orders could not issue at an interlocutory stage, and damages would be adequate. The court framed a single issue: whether the motion was merited. Applying the Giella v Cassman Brown test as elaborated in Nguruman and Mrao, the court accepted that the Claimant raised an arguable prima facie case, noting the discrepancy between the dismissal reasons and the notices to show cause and the pending unheard appeal. However, the application failed on irreparable injury: the supporting affidavit made no averment on the nature or extent of loss; the Claimant sought general damages rather than reinstatement; the suit was filed four months after dismissal; and monetary compensation would suffice. The balance of convenience was also not demonstrated. The motion was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs. The underlying suit remains pending.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimant was entitled to a temporary injunction restraining recruitment to her former position pending hearing of the suit

Holding

The application failed on the Giella test: a prima facie case was arguable, but no irreparable injury was demonstrated and the balance of convenience was not established

Reasoning

The court accepted that the Claimant's case was arguable given the mismatch between dismissal reasons and the notices to show cause and the unheard appeal. However, her affidavit made no averment on the nature or extent of loss; she sought general damages rather than reinstatement; the suit was filed four months after dismissal; and she did not demonstrate comparative inconvenience. The injunction was therefore refused.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The grant of an interlocutory injunction involves judicial discretion and is governed by the settled Giella principles applied sequentially
  • An applicant for a temporary injunction must demonstrate irreparable injury that cannot be adequately compensated by damages, and the burden lies on the applicant

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 11th April, 2024 is dismissed
  2. 2.Parties shall bear own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 10, 50, 159(2)(d), 48
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1B, 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1

Cases cited (11)

  • Giella V Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd
    (1973) EA 358
  • Nguruman Ltd V Jan Bonde Nielsen
    (2014) eKLR
  • Mrao Ltd V First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 others
    (2003) KLR 125
  • Pius Kipchirchir Kogo V Frank Kimeli Tenai
    (2018) eKLR
  • Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd V Sherifi Molana Habib
    (2018) eKLR
  • Dolly Nyambura Mwangi V Faulu Microfinance Bank Ltd
    (2020) eKLR
  • Abel Salim & others V Okong’o & others
    (1976) KLR 42
  • E.A Industries Ltd V Trufoods
    (1972) EA 420
  • Habib Bank AG Zurich V Eugene Marion Yakob
    CA No. 43 of 1982
  • Byran Chebii Kipkoech V Barnabas Tuitoek Bargoria & another
    (2019) eKLR
  • Halsbury’s Laws of England
    3rd Edition Vol. 21 paragraph 739
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction; motion brought under Article 10 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and Section 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jakaiti v Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) (Cause E265 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1991 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1991/eng@2024-07-29

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