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 (employment cause, ELRC Kakamega)· [2025] KEELRC 893 (KLR)

Mambo v Masinde Muliro University of Science & Technology (Cause E039 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 893 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
20 March 2025
DNDavid Nderitu
2,099 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

#

Kenya's Employment Court in Kakamega refused to reinstate a sacked university lecturer mid-case, confirming reinstatement is a final remedy, not a temporary fix.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, a Senior Lecturer Grade XIII in the Department of Medical Laboratory Sciences, filed a notice of motion dated 23rd December 2024 seeking interim reinstatement pending the hearing of his employment cause, contending that his 4th September 2024 termination by the respondent university for alleged gross misconduct (massive deletion and alteration of student marks using his login credentials) was unprocedural, arbitrary and unlawful, and violated Articles 41 and 47 of the Constitution. The respondent, through the deposition of Prof. John Kuria Thuo, maintained that the claimant was served with a show-cause letter, granted access to the evidence including logs, afforded a disciplinary hearing with union representatives on 7th August 2024, and was lawfully terminated on 3rd October 2024; it further argued that reinstatement is a substantive remedy unavailable at an interlocutory stage and that the claimant abandoned the internal appeal process. By consent the application was canvassed by written submissions. Framing a single issue - whether the claimant should be reinstated pending the hearing - the court, applying the Court of Appeal decision in Kenya Tea Growers Association and Rika J's decision in Alfred Nyungu Kimungi, held that reinstatement should ordinarily be a final substantive remedy, since interim reinstatement overturns the employer's decision and prejudges the dispute. Finding the claimant's losses quantifiable and no irreparable harm established, the court dismissed the motion, directed the cause to be heard on merits on a priority basis to beat the three-year reinstatement deadline, and awarded costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether reinstatement may be granted at an interlocutory stage pending hearing of the cause

Holding

No - reinstatement is ordinarily a final, substantive remedy grantable after hearing both sides on merits; the interlocutory application was dismissed.

Reasoning

The court adopted the Court of Appeal's position in Kenya Tea Growers Association citing Rika J in Alfred Nyungu Kimungi v Bomas of Kenya, holding that interim reinstatement effectively overturns the employer's decision and prejudges the dispute. The fair-hearing question raised by the claimant is a substantive issue requiring viva voce evidence. Salary and allowances are quantifiable, so no irreparable harm arises, and the cause was directed to be heard on priority basis to beat the three-year reinstatement deadline under Section 12(3)(vii) ELRCA.

p. 4
02

Whether the claimant demonstrated a prima facie case and irreparable harm warranting interim relief

Holding

The claimant did not; the alleged losses are documented and quantifiable and the balance of convenience favours refusal.

Reasoning

The court found that the salary, allowances and emoluments payable to the claimant are known, documented and quantifiable, so the issue of irreparable loss should not arise. The central dispute on fair hearing before termination was diametrically contested between the parties and could only be resolved on full evidence.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Reinstatement should ordinarily be granted as a substantive final remedy as opposed to interim or interlocutory relief.
  • An interlocutory reinstatement order prejudges the dispute by overturning the employer's decision; courts should be cautious except in the clearest of cases.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated December 23, 2024 is hereby dismissed.
  2. 2.This cause shall be fixed for hearing on merits and on priority basis.
  3. 3.Costs in the cause.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 12
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 12(3)(vii)
  • Employment ActSections 40, 43, 44, 45(2), 49, 50 & 51
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 41 and 47

Cases cited (4)

  • Mary Chemweno v Kenya Pipeline Company Limited
    [2014] eKLR
  • Kenya Airways Limited v Aviation & Allied Workers Union of Kenya & 3 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Kenya Tea Growers Association v Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union
    [2018] eKLR
  • Alfred Nyungu Kimungi v Bomas of Kenya
    [2013] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; Sections 40, 43, 44, 45(2), 49, 50 & 51 of the Employment Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mambo v Masinde Muliro University of Science & Technology (Cause E039 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 893 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (employment cause, ELRC Kakamega). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/893/eng@2025-03-20

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