Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedMotion dated 3 June 2025 (suit challenging termination of employment, ELRC, Isiolo)· [2025] KEELRC 2444 (KLR)

Buchici v University of Nairobi (Cause E503 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2444 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
18 September 2025
883 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that interim reinstatement after termination is not available; reinstatement under section 49 of the Employment Act is a final remedy after a full hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, Personal Assistant to the Chairman of the University of Nairobi Council, received notice of termination of employment on 29 May 2025. On 3 June 2025 he filed a suit and a Motion seeking interlocutory orders restraining the Respondent from harassing or interfering with his employment rights, immediate reinstatement with full pay and benefits pending hearing, and a bar on appointing anyone to his position. He argued he had a prima facie case, a valid fixed-term contract, that termination by University Management rather than the Council was ultra vires, and that the Chair's resignation did not render his position redundant. The Respondent opposed through Grounds of Opposition, a replying affidavit of its Deputy Registrar, and submissions, relying on Alfred Nyungu Kimungui v Bomas of Kenya and Anthony Omari Ongera v Teachers Service Commission, and contending that reinstatement could only be granted after a hearing on the merits under section 49 of the Employment Act. The Court held that the employment relationship stood determined upon termination whether unfair or unlawful; that it could not preserve the employment relationship at an interlocutory stage; that the orders sought would amount to interim reinstatement, a final remedy; and that it would be imprudent to impose the Claimant on a new Chair of Council given the intimate nature of the Personal Assistant role. It directed that the Claimant remain in the assigned house on payment of the requisite rent, but declined to interpret the tenancy agreement absent evidence of breach. The Motion was dismissed with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether interim reinstatement is available before a full hearing

Holding

No - reinstatement under section 49 of the Employment Act is a final remedy granted after a hearing on the merits; interlocutory preservation of an employment relationship is not permissible under ordinary employment law once the employer has terminated it.

Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the employment relationship was determined once the Respondent terminated it, whether fairly or not. Orders (iv) and (v) sought would effectively reinstate the Claimant, a remedy reserved for final determination under section 49. It also considered the nature of the Personal Assistant role, requiring an intimate relationship with the Council Chair who had resigned, making interim imposition of the Claimant imprudent.

p. 2
02

Occupation of the employer-provided house after termination

Holding

The Respondent was directed to allow the Claimant to remain in the assigned house during the currency of the employment relationship on condition he paid the requisite rent; the Court declined to interpret the tenancy agreement absent evidence of breach.

Reasoning

The Court noted the Respondent had deponed that the house was subject to a housing policy and tenancy agreement and that notice would issue at the appropriate time. Balancing the parties' positions, the Court allowed continued occupation conditioned on rent payment, but refused to adjudicate tenancy terms at an interlocutory stage without evidence of breach by either party.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Once an employer terminates employment, the employment relationship stands determined whether or not the termination was unfair or unlawful.
  • Courts cannot preserve an employment relationship at an interlocutory stage before a hearing on the merits under ordinary employment law.
  • Reinstatement is a final remedy available only after a hearing on the merits under section 49 of the Employment Act.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Motion dated 3 June 2025 is dismissed with costs in the cause
  2. 2.The Respondent was directed to allow the Claimant to stay in the house assigned to him during the currency of the employment relationship on condition that he paid the requisite rent
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act, section 49 invoked on remedies)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Buchici v University of Nairobi (Cause E503 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2444 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Motion dated 3 June 2025 (suit challenging termination of employment, ELRC, Isiolo). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2444/eng@2025-09-18

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