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 judgment· [2025] KEELRC 2432 (KLR)

Chika v Technical University of Kenya (Cause E259 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2432 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
15 September 2025
BMB. O. M. Manani
1,736 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan university lecturer who retired at 70 failed to get reinstated before trial, because salary losses are compensable and reinstatement at an early stage is rare.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, a lecturer retired by the Respondent university at age 70 on 31st December 2024, sought an interim injunction restraining the Respondent from advertising or filling her position and an order for reinstatement pending trial. She anchored her claim on a CBA signed on 23rd November 2024 between UASU and universities, which raised the retirement age for academic staff to 74 years, contending that the notice period expired after the CBA was signed and that its effective date was backdated. The Respondent opposed, arguing that under its terms and conditions of service the retirement age was 70, that the Claimant effectively retired on 23rd September 2024 when she attained that age, and that the CBA could not apply retrospectively. Applying the Giella v Cassman Brown conditions, the court found it could not determine on preliminary material whether a prima facie case existed, since the controversy over the CBA's application to the Claimant required full trial. It held the projected salary loss was quantifiable and compensable in damages, hence not irreparable. It also found the balance of convenience against the orders, as the Claimant filed suit four months after retirement without evidence that her position remained vacant. Further, reinstatement or mandatory injunctions seldom issue at the interlocutory stage absent exceptional circumstances, which were not shown. The application dated 28th March 2025 was dismissed with costs abiding the outcome of the suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Prima facie case

Holding

The court could not determine on preliminary material whether the CBA retirement age of 74 applied to the Claimant; hence no prima facie case was established

Reasoning

The dispute over whether the CBA signed on 23rd November 2024 applied to a claimant who had attained age 70 on 23rd September 2024 but retired on 31st December 2024 turns on evidence and the retrospective effect of the CBA, which can only be resolved at full trial.

p. 3
02

Irreparable damage

Holding

Loss of salary is quantifiable and compensable in damages

Reasoning

Because the claimant's prospective salary loss over five years can be projected and calculated, damages would be an adequate remedy, defeating the second Giella condition for an interim injunction.

p. 3
03

Mandatory injunction/reinstatement at interlocutory stage

Holding

Such orders require exceptional circumstances, which the Claimant did not demonstrate

Reasoning

The claimant approached the court after retirement had taken effect, seeking restoration to employment interlocutorily. Following Kiragu v Murimi, Alfred Nyungu Kimungii v Bomas of Kenya and Kenya Tea Growers Association, the court held exceptional circumstances are required and none were shown.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A mandatory injunction or an order reinstating an employee will seldom issue at the interlocutory stage unless exceptional circumstances are shown
  • A quantifiable loss of salary is not irreparable damage since it is capable of compensation in damages

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The prayers sought in the application dated 28th March 2025 are declined
  2. 2.The application is dismissed
  3. 3.Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes; application under the ELRC Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chika v Technical University of Kenya (Cause E259 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2432 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2432/eng@2025-09-15

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