Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNotice of Motion dated 14th November 2024 (ELRC, Mombasa)· [2025] KEELRC 2414 (KLR)

Kirigha v Kenya Revenue Authority (Cause E114 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2414 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
12 June 2025
OKOcharo Kebira
2,142 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, a Domestic Taxes Department Officer at the KRA Voi Tax Service Office, moved the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa by Notice of Motion dated 14th November 2024 seeking a temporary injunction restraining the Respondent from transferring him from Voi to Hola pending hearing of the suit. He relied on medical grounds: he had been diagnosed with prediabetes and primary hypertension, was under treatment at Aga Khan Voi, and required dietary management and close medical supervision plus family support, including from his wife, a nurse. His internal appeals on medical grounds were declined, the Respondent treating his conditions as chronic rather than the terminal illnesses contemplated by its transfer policy clause 34.3.17, and operationalising the Hola Tax Service Office as critical. The Respondent opposed, asserting that staff deployment is a management prerogative courts seldom disturb, that its policy justified the transfer after four years at Voi, and that the suit would be rendered nugatory. The court framed two issues: its power to issue the interlocutory orders, and the applicant's entitlement to them. It held that courts may, in exceptional circumstances, issue temporary restraining orders interfering with managerial prerogative where rights are threatened, subject to proof of a prima facie case, irreparable harm and balance of convenience. Finding the replying affidavit self-defeating - revealing that the employer saw merit in the appeal but prioritised operations - and noting that chronic illness could deteriorate without medical support and that reconsideration was promised at financial year-end, the court granted the injunction, restraining the transfer pending determination of the suit, with priority hearing on 9th July 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Court may restrain an employee transfer at the interlocutory stage despite the employer's managerial prerogative

Holding

Yes - the Court may grant temporary restraining orders interfering with managerial prerogative where rights are threatened, provided the employee establishes a prima facie case, irreparable harm and balance of convenience, and the Court must avoid determining the main claim at interlocutory stage.

Reasoning

The court held that interlocutory orders exist to prevent threatened or ongoing unlawful, unfair and unjust actions and to preserve the core of the case. Distinguishing the persuasive authority in Professor Gitile Naituli, it found that intervention is not barred but reserved for exceptional circumstances, judged case by case. On the facts, the replying affidavit's own content showed the employer accepted the appeal had merit but prioritised operations, giving the claimant a prima facie case; chronic illness could morph into terminal illness without medical support, showing irreparable harm; and the pending reconsideration at financial year-end tilted the balance of convenience to the applicant.

p. 3
02

Whether the Claimant demonstrated a prima facie case, irreparable harm and balance of convenience

Holding

Yes. The replying affidavit was self-defeating, showing the employer believed the appeal had merit but declined to rescind the transfer; the medical evidence showed risk of irreparable loss; and the promise to reconsider at financial year-end favoured the applicant.

Reasoning

The court found that paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the replying affidavit conveyed an employer who believed the employee's appeal had merit but prioritised operational needs without adequately considering his health. It reasoned that a chronic illness can morph into a terminal illness without proper medical facilities, so irreparable loss was shown. The respondent's promise to reconsider at the end of the financial year, only days away, signalled that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Courts possess authority to issue temporary restraining orders that can interfere with the managerial prerogatives of the employer where statutory, constitutional and common law rights are threatened.
  • Interlocutory intervention in the employer's managerial prerogative requires the employee to establish a prima facie case, irreparable harm and balance of convenience.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent, its agents and or servants are temporarily restrained from transferring the Applicant from Voi to Hola, pending the hearing and determination of this suit
  2. 2.The matter shall be heard on a priority basis; hearing on 9th July 2025

Authorities

#

Cases cited (2)

  • Professor Gitile Naituli v University Council, Multimedia University College and another
    Industrial Court Cause No. 1200 of 2012
  • Mrao Limited v First American Bank of Kenya and 2 Others
    [2003]
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes and power to grant interlocutory injunctive relief

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kirigha v Kenya Revenue Authority (Cause E114 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2414 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 14th November 2024 (ELRC, Mombasa). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2414/eng@2025-06-12

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