Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No E760 of 2024· [2025] KEELRC 830 (KLR)

Mulwa v Marist International University College (Cause E760 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 830 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
14 March 2025
SRStella Rutto
2,469 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court refused to suspend a contract non-renewal, holding money damages could adequately compensate, even though the employee showed an arguable case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling on the Claimant's Notice of Motion dated 5th September 2024 in an employment dispute before the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi. The Claimant, Muli Cleophas Mulwa, an academic staff member employed by the Respondent since 1st May 2009 on successive fixed-term contracts renewed in 2012, 2018 and 2021, sought interim orders suspending and prohibiting implementation of the Respondent's letter of 29th July 2024 declining to renew his contract upon its expiry on 31st July 2024. He argued the non-renewal was arbitrary, opaque, discriminatory and contrary to his legitimate expectation of renewal, exposing him to financial hardship including default on a Sacco loan and his children's school fees. The Respondent, through its Principal Lukong Francis Yufenyu, maintained that the fixed-term contract simply expired by its own terms, that renewal was never guaranteed, and that the Claimant was cleared and paid his final salary. The Court framed a single issue: whether the Applicant had met the requirements for an interlocutory injunction under Giella v Cassman Brown. Applying Mrao Ltd v First American Bank, the Court found the Applicant had shown an arguable prima facie case on legitimate expectation. However, applying Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen, it held he would suffer no irreparable injury because Section 12(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act empowers the Court to grant damages, reinstatement and other remedies sought in the Memorandum of Claim. The Court also noted the letter had already taken effect and interim relief cannot act retrospectively. The application was disallowed with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success

Holding

The Applicant proved an arguable prima facie case based on his legitimate expectation of contract renewal

Reasoning

The Court applied the Mrao Ltd v First American Bank definition of a prima facie case. The Applicant's contention that prior renewals of his fixed-term contract in 2012, 2018 and 2021 created a legitimate expectation of renewal in 2024 would require interrogation at the trial of the main suit. On the material presented, the Court found the Applicant had demonstrated an arguable prima facie case, though this alone was insufficient to warrant an injunction.

p. 4
02

Whether the Applicant would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted

Holding

No irreparable injury; damages and other remedies would adequately compensate the Applicant

Reasoning

The Court applied Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen. Under Section 12(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, the Court may award damages, reinstatement, prohibitory orders, specific performance and declaratory orders. The Memorandum of Claim sought reinstatement, salary arrears, damages for unfair termination, constitutional violations and exemplary damages. Any successful claim would thus be compensable, so no irreparable loss would arise from refusing interim relief.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Where damages recoverable in law are an adequate remedy, no interlocutory injunction should normally be granted

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Application dated 5th September 2024 is disallowed
  2. 2.Costs shall be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 12(3)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48

Cases cited (3)

  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd
    [1973] E.A.
  • Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 others
    [2003] eKLR
  • Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 12(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act

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.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mulwa v Marist International University College (Cause E760 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 830 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E760 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/830/eng@2025-03-14

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