Gisore v Aga Khan University Hospital (Cause E413 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 273 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant had met the test for grant of the injunctive orders sought (prima facie case, irreparable injury, balance of convenience) at the interlocutory stage
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant satisfied the Giella v Cassman Brown test for interlocutory injunctive orders
The application is dismissed because the applicant did not satisfy the test at the interlocutory stage.
The letter of 23 May 2024 merely notified the applicant of a decision not to renew her clinical privileges upon lapse on 1 June 2024. Whether that decision breached the Respondent's policies or was irregular is a contested factual question that cannot be determined on an interlocutory application. On the material placed before it, the Court found the applicant had not demonstrated the elements required for the injunction sought.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for interlocutory injunctive relief must demonstrate a prima facie case, irreparable injury if orders are not granted, and, in cases of doubt, the balance of convenience
Court orders
#- 1.The Motion dated 29 May 2024 is dismissed
- 2.The Respondent is awarded costs of the Motion (because the applicant did not abide by the timelines for filing and service of submissions)
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction (petitioner's claim of breach of contract over cancellation of clinical privileges); a preliminary objection on jurisdiction had been dismissed in a Ruling of 29 July 2024
Relief refused
#Suspension of the Respondent's letter dated 23 May 2024 cancelling the applicant's clinical privileges, pending inter-partes hearing of the application and pending hearing and determination of the Memorandum of Claim
The applicant failed to satisfy the interlocutory injunction test; whether the decision was irregular is a contested fact the Court cannot examine at this stage
Costs
Since the applicant did not abide by the timelines for filing and service of submissions, the Respondent is awarded costs of the Motion.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
the test an applicant should meet to secure the injunctive orders sought was set out in Giella v Cassman Brown (1973) EA 358. The test is the demonstration of a prima facie case, irreparable injury if orders are not granted and balance of convenience in cases of doubt.
Whether such a decision did not comply with the Respondent's policies in place or was irregular is a contested fact that the Court cannot examine at this interlocutory stage.
Flowing from the above, the Motion dated 29 May 2024 is dismissed.
Since the applicant did not abide by the timelines for filing and service of submissions, the Respondent is awarded costs of the Motion.
Issues in the judgment
#The applicant's pleading is inconsistently described - filed as a Memorandum of Claim but referred to as a Petition in the Motion
The judgment gives inconsistent lapse dates for the clinical privileges - 1 June 2024 in paragraph 11 and 31 May 2024 in the Motion
The opening prayer items of the Motion are omitted in the judgment's record (items i and ii appear incomplete) and case number is not stated on the face of the Ruling
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gisore v Aga Khan University Hospital (Cause E413 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 273 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated on the face of the Ruling (arising from Memorandum of Claim filed 30 May 2024; prior proceedings: Nairobi ELRC Petition No. 105 of 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/273/eng@2025-02-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.