Tom Ongondi Omollo v International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)

3. The Claimant alleges that he has been in continuous service of the Respondent for over seven (7) years. It is his case that there is no justification to arbitrarily terminate the aforesaid relationship. He contends that the reasons given by the Respondent to justify its decision are a smokescreen to cover the actual reasons for seeking to terminate the contract between the parties which, inter alia, include retaliation against him for exposing various workplace malpractices by members of management. 4. The Claimant alleges that despite the Respondent alleging that the contract cannot be extended for operational reasons, it has not issued any notice to the local labour office to commence a lawful redundancy process against him in terms of section 40 of the Employment Act. He contends that the Respondent has instead began pushing him to undertake a handover process. 5. Together with the Statement of Claim, the Claimant has filed the application dated 16th September 2026 seeking the following interim reliefs:a) Spent. b) Spent. c) That pending the hearing and determination of the claim, a temporary injunction be issued to restrain the Respondent from terminating, replacing or altering the employment terms, status and remuneration of the Claimant. CAUSE NO E1085 OF 2026 2

page 2 of 13

d) That costs of the application be provided for. 6. The application is anchored on the grounds appearing on the face thereof. It is also supported by the Claimant’s affidavit. 7. The grounds and affidavit in support of the application basically reiterate what the Claimant has set out in the Statement of Claim. Other than this, the Claimant contends that he has legitimate expectation to continue in the Respondent’s service beyond 30th September 2026. He further asserts that the Respondent will suffer no loss if the court restrains it from terminating the contract between the parties since the funds to meet his salary have been secured through donor funding. Conversely, he contends that if his contract is terminated, he will suffer immediate loss of income, medical cover and livelihood. 8. The Respondent has opposed the application. It has filed a replying affidavit dated 21 st September 2026 to anchor its response to the motion. It avers that the Claimant’s last contract of service was for a fixed term running from 1 st April 2026 until 30th September 2026. It further avers that the contract expressly provided that it (the Respondent) was under no obligation to extend it (the contract) beyond its sunset date. 9. The Respondent avers that owing to the fact that the contract between them is set to lapse on 30th September 2026, it issued the Claimant with a notice of non-renewal of the contract dated 31st August 2026. Nevertheless, it contends CAUSE NO E1085 OF 2026 3

page 3 of 13

that the Claimant remains its employee until the sunset date of the contract and will continue to enjoy all benefits under the contract, including medical cover, until the sunset date. It further avers that it will pay the Claimant’s his terminal dues in line with its National Staff Regulations once the contract comes to a close. 10. The Respondent denies that the decision not to renew the Claimant’s contract is retaliatory. It nevertheless avers that such assertions raise matters of fact which can only be interrogated through full trial. 11. The Respondent asserts that it retains the managerial prerogative to run the workplace. It contends that the Claimant cannot invite the court to interfere with the exercise of this prerogative by compelling it to renew the contract between the parties. 12. The Respondent avers that the instant application does not meet the threshold for grant of an order of interim injunction. It contends that the Claimant has not established a prima facie case with a probability of success. It further avers that the injury which the Claimant will suffer if the orders sought are not granted is quantifiable and has indeed been quantified in the Statement of Claim. As such, it avers that the balance of convenience tilts against granting the orders. Analysis CAUSE NO E1085 OF 2026 4

page 4 of 13

13. The principles which govern the grant of orders of interim injunction are now well settled. As was pronounced in the celebrated case of Giella Vs Cassman Brown & Co Ltd (1973) EA 358, before a court of law can grant an order of interim injunction, it must satisfy itself that the applicant has a prima facie case with a probability of success. Further, it must be evident that the applicant will suffer irreparable damage if the orders sought are not granted. Finally, if the court is in doubt, it should decide the application on a balance of convenience. The instant application will be considered with these principles in mind. 14. The Claimant seeks an order to bar the Respondent from terminating his contract of service pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit. It is his case that the Respondent has irregularly issued him with a notice of nonrenewal of the contract beyond 30 th September 2026. As such, he prays that the court issues an order of interim injunction to stop the process. 15. The Respondent has opposed the application. It contends that the contract between them is for a fixed term and due to expire on 30th September 2026. 16. The Respondent avers that it does not wish to extend the contract beyond 30th September 2026. It further contends that it has notified the Claimant of its intention not to renew the contract. CAUSE NO E1085 OF 2026 5

page 5 of 13

17. The general principle in law is that a fixed term contract of service does not carry any expectation for its renewal. Such expectation can only arise if the employer has, either expressly or by conduct, signified to the employee the possibility of the contract being extended beyond its sunset date. 18. In Transparency International - Kenya v Omondi [2023] KECA 174 (KLR), the Court of Appeal expressed itself on the subject as follows:‘’We dare say that an automatically renewable fixedterm contract is a contradiction in terms, as it would subject the parties to an indeterminate employment contract. The respondent was under a fixed-term contract with a definite commencement date and termination date. There was no ambiguity created to create an expectation of contract renewal by the appellant’s issuance of a fixed-term contract. The contract terminated automatically when the termination date arrived. Whether a contract with a renewal clause will be extended or not, is an issue that is at the discretion of the employer and it cannot create a legal right under the doctrine of legitimate expectation.’’ 19. In Registered Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of East Africa & another v Ruth Gathoni Ngotho- Kariuki CAUSE NO E1085 OF 2026 6

page 6 of 13

[2017] KECA 194 (KLR), the Court of Appeal observed as follows:‘’….fixed term contracts carry no rights, obligations, or expectations beyond the date of expiry.’’ 20. In Margaret A Ochieng v National Water Conservation & Pipeline Corporation [2014] KEELRC 573 (KLR), the learned Judge observed on the subject as follows:‘’Automatic renewal would undermine the very purpose of the fixed-term contract, and revert to indeterminate contracts of employment……. courts have upheld the principle that fixed-term contracts carry no expectancy of renewal, in a catena of judicial authorities……The general principle is that fixed-term contracts carry no expectation of renewal….Exceptions to this general principle are limited. The expiring contract may contain a clause giving expectancy of renewal….’’ 21. The preliminary material before court demonstrate that the parties to the suit had a fixed term contract whose sunset date was agreed to be 30th September 2026. The contract, which is captured in the communication by the Respondent to the Claimant dated 4th May 2026, states as follows:‘’Dear Tom, RE: EXTENSION OF YOUR FIXED TERM CONTRACT We are pleased to extend your fixed term contract, which was due to expire on 31st March 2026, until 30th September 2026. CAUSE NO E1085 OF 2026 7

page 7 of 13

The parties agree that the Federation is under no obligation to extend this agreement or to establish another contract extension once the present agreement is completed. It is also understood that a promise to extend or renew this agreement will be valid only if it is in writing and is duly signed by the manager. This letter is therefore given with the understanding that the notice of non-extension is included. All other terms and conditions of your current contract remain unchanged. Please indicate your acceptance of the above terms and conditions by returning a signed copy of this letter to the Human Resources Management Department. We would like to take this opportunity to wish you all the best for the continuation of your work with the Federation. Yours sincerely, Alvin Ngoda Interim Lead, Human Resources – Africa I AGREE TO THE ABOVE TERMS AND CONDITIONS Tom Ongondi Omollo Signature’’ 22. From the above excerpt, it is apparent that the terms of engagement between the parties were clear and unambiguous. The Claimant was re-engaged for a further period ending on 30th September 2026. Further, it was made CAUSE NO E1085 OF 2026 8

page 8 of 13

clear to him that the Respondent was under no obligation to extend the contract beyond 30 th September 2026. The Claimant appended his signature to the contract signifying his acceptance of the aforesaid terms. 23. As noted from the decisions alluded to earlier in the ruling, a fixed term contract of service does not carry with it any expectation for its renewal. As such, the Claimant cannot assert that he had legitimate expectation that the contract was to be renewed after its sunset date of 30 th September 2026. 24. Indeed, it has been stated a myriad times that an employer in a fixed term contract need not give the employee the reasons why the contract will not be renewed. The reason for non-renewal is inbuilt in the contract: the fact that the contract has a sunset date. 25. Speaking to this in the case of Amatsi Water Services Company Limited v Francis Shire Chachi [2018] KECA 255 (KLR), the Court of Appeal quoted with approval the following excerpt from the case of Bernard Wanjohi Muriuki vs Kirinyaga Water And Sanitation Company Limited & Another [2012] eKLR:“In the view of the Court, there is no obligation on the part of an employer to give reasons to an employee why a fixed-term contract of employment should not be renewed. To require an employer to give reasons why the contract should not be renewed, is the same thing CAUSE NO E1085 OF 2026 9

page 9 of 13

as demanding from an employer to give reasons why, a potential employee should not be employed. The only reason that should be given is that the term has come to an end, and no more. … Reasons, beyond effluxion of time, are not necessary in termination of fixed-term contracts, unless there is a clause in the contract, calling for additional justification for the termination.” 26. In view of the foresaid, the Claimant’s assertion that termination of the contract is a disguised redundancy is of little value to the case. So is the Respondent’s contention that it is not able to renew the contract because of lack of sufficient funding. In so far as there is evidence that the Respondent’s actions are founded on the reality that the contract has a sunset date, it (the Respondent) has no obligation in law to justify the decision not to renew the contract. 27. Having regard to the foresaid, it is apparent that the Claimant’s challenge to the lapse of his contract on account of effluxion of time does not present a prima facie case with a probability of success. As such, the court finds that on the basis of the material before it, the Claimant has not satisfied the first condition for grant of an order of injunction as set out in the case of Giella Vs Cassman Brown & Co Ltd (supra). 28. The other threshold which an applicant for interim injunction must satisfy before the court can grant the order is to CAUSE NO E1085 OF 2026 10

page 10 of 13

demonstrate that he will suffer irreparable injury if the order sought is not granted. With respect, the material before me does not demonstrate that the Claimant has satisfied this condition. He has not demonstrated that failure to issue the order of injunction will occasion him injury which cannot be redressed by an award of damages. 29. On the contrary, and if the contract which has been exhibited by the parties is anything to go by, it is apparent the loss which will flow from the non-issuance of the orders sought is capable of being quantified. This reality is selfevident from the fact that the fixed term contract which the parties have is for a term of six (6) months from 1 st April 2026 to 30th September 2026. As such, if the contract was to be renewed, it would be for a further term of six (6) months unless the parties expressly agree to a longer duration. That being the case, the loss which is likely to flow from the nonrenewal of the contract is the Claimant’s emolument for six (6) months, an amount which is capable of being quantified and compensated through an award of damages. 30. Further, section 49 of the Employment Act entitles an employee whose contract is improperly terminated to an order of reinstatement or re-engagement in an appropriate case. That being the case, the Claimant cannot contend that he will suffer irreparable loss if the order sought is not issued since the aforesaid remedies remain available to him. Determination CAUSE NO E1085 OF 2026 11

page 11 of 13

31. The upshot is that the court finds that the Claimant has not satisfied the threshold for the grant of the order of interim injunction that he seeks in the application under consideration. 32. As such, the application is declined. 33. Costs of the application shall be in the cause. Dated, signed and delivered on the 29th day of September, 2026 B. O. M. MANANI JUDGE In the presence of: …………….for the Claimant …………….for the Respondent ORDER In light of the directions issued on 12 th July 2022 by her Ladyship, the Chief Justice with respect to online court proceedings, this decision has been delivered to the parties online with their consent, the parties having waived compliance with Rule 28 (3) of the ELRC Procedure Rules which requires that all judgments and rulings shall be dated, signed and delivered in the open court. CAUSE NO E1085 OF 2026 12

page 12 of 13

B. O. M MANANI CAUSE NO E1085 OF 2026 13

page 13 of 13