Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2025] KEELRC 1609 (KLR)

Nzuki v South Eastern Kenya University & another (Cause E032 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1609 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
29 May 2025
825 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment Court refused to stop South Eastern Kenya University from filling the employee's old job because the claimant's lawsuit targeted his suspension, not his dismissal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, an employee of South Eastern Kenya University, moved the Employment and Labour Relations Court by an application dated 27.03.2025 under Articles 2(6), 22, 47(1) and 48 of the Constitution, Article 25 of the UDHR and section 49(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the 1st respondent from advertising or filling the position of Assistant Director, Facilities Management & Administration, pending hearing of a suit in which he sought reinstatement. He contended that his suspension was unfairly handled and that, while the suit was pending, the disciplinary process culminated in a summary dismissal by letter dated 03.02.2025, upheld on administrative appeal on 19.03.2025, which he characterised as an afterthought calculated to defeat the pending suit; he also alleged bias in the appeal minutes and argued that filling the position would defeat any reinstatement order and prejudice an innocent third-party appointee. The respondents, through the replying affidavit of Professor Francis Wachira, Deputy Vice Chancellor, urged that the matters were premature and resolvable only at full hearing. Applying the Giella v Cassman Brown principles, the court found no apparent or obvious evidence of the alleged unfairness or bias, held that no prima facie case with probability of success was shown, and further found that the suit as pleaded challenged the suspension only and not the summary dismissal, so the injunction would serve no potential final relief and would seriously prejudice the respondents. The application was dismissed with costs in the cause, and the file was ordered returned to the Machakos sub-registry, with parties to take a convenient mention date for directions towards expeditious hearing of the suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant established the Giella principles for a temporary injunction

Holding

The application failed on the first Giella test; no prima facie case was demonstrated as the alleged unfairness and bias had no apparent or obvious evidential support and could only be resolved at full hearing

Reasoning

The court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown principles. On the material filed, the allegations of unfair suspension, summary dismissal as an afterthought, and bias in the administrative appeal minutes lacked apparent or obvious evidence. The court agreed with the respondents that the matters were premature and could only be resolved one way or the other after the full hearing of the suit.

p. 2
02

Whether the relief sought matched the suit as pleaded

Holding

The suit challenged the suspension, not the summary dismissal, so an injunction premised on a future reinstatement order did not serve any potential final relief; the balance of convenience favoured the respondents

Reasoning

The court observed that the pleadings challenged only the suspension, while the injunction sought protection against consequences of the later summary dismissal. The applicant had not promptly amended the suit to anchor the injunction on a proposed reinstatement order. Granting the injunction while the suit stood as pleaded would seriously prejudice the respondents without serving the ends of justice.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The principles for grant of a temporary injunction are establishment of a prima facie case with probability of success; irreparable injury not adequately remedied by money; and, if in doubt, balance of convenience

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application is dismissed with costs in the cause
  2. 2.The Deputy Registrar to return the case file to the Machakos sub registry forthwith
  3. 3.Parties to take a convenient mention date for further orders and directions towards the expeditious hearing and determination of the suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 2(6), 22, 47(1) and 48 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010; section 49(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nzuki v South Eastern Kenya University & another (Cause E032 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1609 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1609/eng@2025-05-29

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