Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissed

Moffat v Kenya Revenue Authority (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E089 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2290 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
31 July 2025
BMB. O. M. Manani
1,428 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, formerly employed by the Respondent as Supervisor, Ethics and Integrity from 3rd March 2014, was summarily dismissed on 8th October 2024 after the Respondent concluded that a certificate he had presented was not genuine. The Respondent acted on a directive from the Public Service Commission to audit employees' academic qualifications. The issuing institution gave contradictory responses - first denying the Claimant was a student, then confirming he was but asserting he did not meet the threshold for the certificate. The Claimant contended the institution had verified the certificate as genuine and that the Respondent introduced new evidence at the appeal stage, rendering his termination unfair. Together with his Statement of Claim he filed an application dated 11th February 2025 seeking interim reinstatement and an order restraining the Respondent from advertising or filling his position. The Respondent opposed, asserting valid reasons and due process. Ruling on 31st July 2025, Manani J held that the grounds of termination were heavily contested and could only be determined after full trial on evidence tested by cross-examination. Applying Ngige v Samsung Electronics EA Limited and Kenya Tea Growers Association v Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union, the court held that reinstatement is an exceptional interim remedy which the Claimant had not justified. The application was also filed about four months after dismissal, and the Claimant produced no evidence that the position remained vacant, defeating the restraint prayer. The application was declined in its entirety, with costs in the cause.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether reinstatement pending trial should issue as an interim order
  2. 2.Whether the Respondent should be restrained from advertising or filling the Claimant's position pending resolution of the dispute

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether reinstatement can be ordered at the interlocutory stage

Holding

Reinstatement is declined at the interlocutory stage; it should await full trial unless exceptional circumstances are shown

Reasoning

The court held that the circumstances leading to the termination are heavily contested and can only be resolved after evidence has been tested by cross-examination at trial. Relying on Ngige v Samsung Electronics EA Ltd and Kenya Tea Growers Association v KP&AWU, reinstatement at the interlocutory stage is generally inadvisable and is reserved for exceptional circumstances. The Claimant demonstrated none.

p. 3
02

Whether an order restraining the Respondent from filling the position should issue

Holding

Refused for lack of evidence that the position remained vacant

Reasoning

The Claimant sought an order barring the Respondent from advertising or filling his position. However, the application was filed approximately four months after termination, and the Claimant did not place any material before the court showing that the position was still vacant at the time he moved to court and thereafter. In the absence of this critical information, the court could not issue the order.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Reinstatement is an exceptional remedy that should ordinarily be granted only after full trial, particularly where the validity of the termination is heavily contested

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 11th February 2025 is unmerited and is declined
  2. 2.Costs of the application will be in the cause

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

BM
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and ELRC Procedure Rules (not expressly cited in the judgment)

Relief refused

#

Reinstatement pending the hearing and determination of the case

Reinstatement rarely issues at interlocutory stage; the validity of the termination is heavily contested and no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated

p. 3

Order restraining the Respondent from advertising or filling the Claimant's position

No material placed before the court to establish that the position was still vacant when the application was filed and thereafter

p. 3

Costs

Costs of the application will be in the cause

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 application dated 11th February 2025 is unmerited and is declined.
p. 3final orders
Costs of the application will be in the cause.
p. 3costs
The relief of reinstatement seldom issues at the preliminary stage of a trial.
p. 3interim reinstatement
such remedy can only issue in exceptional circumstances. Otherwise, it is generally advisable that the court only considers whether or not to issue it after full trial.
p. 3exceptional circumstances for reinstatement

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment records the application as filed on two different dates

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Moffat v Kenya Revenue Authority (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E089 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2290 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2290/eng@2025-07-31

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