Mukuha v Judicial Service Commission (Cause E718 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2954 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court refused to reinstate a Tax Appeals Tribunal member whose contract had expired, ruling that money damages could adequately cover her loss.
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 court should compel the Respondent to renew the Claimant's appointment as a member of Tax Appeals Tribunal (Legal) Grade E2 pending trial of the suit
- 2.Whether the Claimant established a prima facie case with high probability of success
- 3.Whether the Claimant would suffer irreparable harm if the order is withheld
- 4.Whether special and exceptional circumstances exist to warrant an interlocutory mandatory injunction
Key legal issues
#Prima facie case
The Claimant failed to show, on the face value of the material, that her legal rights were violated by the non-renewal of her contract
The fixed-term contract lapsed by effluxion of time before the suit and was not renewed. The court held that at the interlocutory stage it only considers whether the material shows on face value an apparently breached right. The Claimant's claims of legitimate expectation and age discrimination were not established on the material presented; entitlement to renewal is a matter for trial.
Irreparable harm
The Claimant's loss was fully quantified and compensable by damages, so it was not irreparable
The Claimant herself quantified her claimed loss as Kshs. 18,954,864 in income and Kshs. 6,318,288 in gratuity. There was no evidence the Respondent could not pay. Since damages were an adequate remedy, the irreparable harm threshold for an interlocutory injunction failed.
Exceptional circumstances for mandatory interlocutory injunction
None demonstrated; the Respondent acted within its contractual rights
Applying Kenya Breweries Ltd v Washington Okenyo, a mandatory interlocutory injunction requires special circumstances or a case where the defendant is stealing a match. The court found neither; the evidence showed the Respondent acted within its contractual rights and did not breach the lapsed contract.
Legal principles established
#- An interlocutory mandatory injunction is not normally granted unless the applicant demonstrates exceptional and unique circumstances, in addition to the Giella principles
- Where a loss is quantifiable in damages and the defendant is capable of paying, the harm is not irreparable and no interlocutory injunction should issue
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the Claimant's Notice of Motion dated 29th July 2025
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment dispute (statutory basis not expressly stated in the ruling)
Relief refused
#Order compelling the Respondent to renew the Claimant's appointment and reinstate her for the period in the letter of appointment dated 7th July 2022
The Claimant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable harm, or exceptional and unique circumstances justifying an interlocutory mandatory injunction
Costs of the application
Costs followed the event and were awarded to the successful Respondent
Costs
The Notice of Motion dated 29th July 2025 was dismissed with costs (to the Respondent).
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.
I have found that the Applicant has not met the threshold for granting mandatory interlocutory injunction. She has failed to prove a prima facie case with high probability of success; that she will sufier irreparable loss if injunction is declined; and that special and exceptional circumstances exists to warrant a positive injunction against the Respondent. Consequently, I dismiss the Notice of Motion dated 29th July 2025 with costs.
I am not satisfied, on the face value, that the applicant has demonstrated that any of her legal rights were violated by the Respondent's failure to renew her contract for three years after the lapse of the initial contract on 1st July 2025.
It follows that the loss she stands to sufier will not be irreparable.
the evidence adduced show that the Respondent acted within its contractual rights and never breached the lapsed contract of employment.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to a decision letter dated 26th June 2025 in the Claimant's pleadings but to a letter dated 20th June 2025 in the Respondent's affidavit; the dates conflict
The Claimant pleaded that she is 59 years old and below the statutory retirement age, while the Respondent relied on the mandatory retirement age of 60 years for Judiciary Officers; this factual conflict was not resolved at the interlocutory stage
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mukuha v Judicial Service Commission (Cause E718 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2954 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2954/eng@2025-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.