Mulli v Airlines (Cause E604 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2470 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court suspended an employee's dismissal until trial, holding that losing disability medical cover cannot be fixed with money later.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Prima facie case
The Claimant established a prima facie case because the court will have to interrogate whether she was condemned unheard contrary to the right to be heard, Section 41 of the Employment Act and the Respondent's HR Policy Manual.
Applying the Mrao definition, a prima facie case requires an apparent infringement of a right calling for rebuttal. The dispute over whether the Claimant saw or was properly served with the Notice to Show Cause, and whether she waived her right to be heard, discloses an apparent infringement of her right to be heard that warrants explanation and will be interrogated at trial.
Irreparable injury
Loss of income and, more significantly, medical insurance benefits upon which a disabled claimant depends on lifelong medications would not be adequately compensated by damages.
The court weighed what is at stake if the termination takes effect: the Claimant would stand terminated, losing income and medical benefits critical to her disability-related care. Given the alleged denial of a hearing and the non-monetary stakes, a post-facto damages award would not adequately remedy the loss if she succeeds at trial.
Balance of convenience
The balance of convenience tilts in favour of the Claimant, particularly since she would continue rendering services and the termination would take effect if she is found to have squandered the opportunity to be heard.
The court reasoned that the interim suspension does not give the Claimant a free benefit; she will continue working, and if at trial the termination is found procedural, it will be allowed to take effect. The Respondent therefore suffers no irreparable prejudice from maintaining the status quo pending full hearing.
Legal principles established
#- Where an employee is terminated without being heard on allegations in a Notice to Show Cause, and stands to lose more than monetary benefits (including medical cover for a disability), the loss may be irreparable and compensable damages inadequate, justifying suspension of the termination pending trial.
Court orders
#- 1.Pending the hearing and determination of the Claim, the letter of termination dated 19th June 2025 is suspended
- 2.The costs of the application shall be in the cause
- 3.Respondent to file and serve its Response, witness statements and list and bundle of documents within 21 days
- 4.Claimant to file and serve any Reply within 14 days upon service
- 5.Pleadings to close thereafter and parties to take a suitable hearing date
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction under the Employment Act 2007 (interlocutory application in a claim pending before the Court)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mulli v Airlines (Cause E604 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2470 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E604 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2470/eng@2025-09-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.