Wanyonyi v Riara University (Cause E743 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2800 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that letting a fixed-term contract lapse is not unfair termination, and refused to stop a university from ending the engagement.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Claimant's application dated 19th August 2025 meets the legal threshold for grant of interlocutory injunctions.
- 2.Whether the interim orders issued on 20th August 2025 should be set aside as sought in the Respondent's application dated 25th August 2025.
- 3.Who should bear the costs of the two applications.
Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant established a prima facie case for interlocutory injunction
No - the Claimant produced no written contract proving permanent employment, and the material supported the Respondent's case that both contracts were fixed-term and lapsed automatically
The Claimant alleged permanent employment and unilateral alteration of his status, but adduced no written contract to support permanent employment. The Respondent produced signed fixed-term contracts. The alleged change from part-time lecturer to adjunct lecturer was immaterial as both mean the same thing. Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract is not, per se, an infringement of rights.
Whether the Claimant demonstrated irreparable harm not capable of remedy by damages
No - the fixed-term contracts lapsed on dates mutually agreed, so the alleged harm was without merit; even termination of a permanent contract pending trial would be compensable in damages
The contracts were for fixed terms and automatically lapsed on the agreed dates, so the Claimant could not suffer irreparable harm from non-renewal. Further, even on a permanent contract, termination pending trial per se is not irreparable harm since damages are an adequate remedy, per Ngurumani Ltd v Jan Bonde Nielsen.
Whether the interim orders of 20th August 2025 should be set aside for material non-disclosure
The question was moot - having found the Claimant's motion devoid of merit, the interim order stood discharged automatically
The Respondent sought to set aside the interim order on grounds of material non-disclosure and misrepresentation. Since the court found no merit in the Claimant's motion, the impugned interim order ceased to exist, rendering the Respondent's setting-aside motion moot and unnecessary to decide.
Legal principles established
#- An employer's failure to renew a fixed-term contract after expiry, per se, does not amount to infringement of the employee's rights or unfair termination
- The interlocutory injunction threshold in Giella v Cassman Brown remains the governing test
- A court should not act in vain; where interim orders have ceased to exist, a motion to set them aside is moot
Court orders
#- 1.The Claimant's Notice of Motion dated 19th August 2025 is dismissed with costs.
- 2.The Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 25th August 2025 has been overtaken by events.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Rules (Rule 17 and Rule 33(1) invoked by the parties)
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the Respondent from terminating, removing or interfering with the Claimant's employment
The Claimant did not establish a prima facie case with probability of success or irreparable harm; his fixed-term contracts had lapsed by effluxion of time
Prohibitory and injunctive orders stopping the Respondent from victimizing the Claimant through unfair termination, dismissal, redundancy or retrenchment
The Claimant did not prove by evidence that the Respondent unlawfully terminated or was about to terminate the contract of employment
Costs
The Claimant's Notice of Motion dated 19th August 2025 is dismissed with costs (costs to the Respondent); the Respondent's motion was overtaken by events with no separate costs order made.
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.
a. The Claimant's Notice of Motion dated 19th August 2025 is dismissed with costs. b. The Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 25th August 2025 has been overtaken by events.
I hold that the claimant has not established a prima facie case with probability of success since the employer's failure to renew a fixed term contract after expiry, per se, does not amount to infringement of the employee's rights.
Even if the claimant was on a permanent contract, which has not been proved, termination of the same pending trial, per se, would not amount to irreparable harm which cannot be remedied by damages.
Having found no merits in the claimant's motion, the impugned interim order stands discharged automatically and the respondent's motion rendered a moot case.
Issues in the judgment
#The Replying Affidavit of the Respondent's Vice Chancellor is dated 25th August 2015, an apparent typographical error for 2025
The Court of Appeal decision is referred to as both 'Mwao Limited' and 'Mrao Limited' in the judgment
The case number and neutral citation of this suit are not stated in the judgment text provided
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wanyonyi v Riara University (Cause E743 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2800 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2800/eng@2025-10-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.