[2016] KEELRC 339 (KLR)
The Court found that the Claimants were not seeking to protect their individual contracts but rather to restrain the Respondents from recruiting any new Youth Polytechnic Instructors. Granting such an order would constitute an unwarranted intrusion into the employer's discretion to manage its operations and could...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELRC 339 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Anthony Gitau Waweru, Teressah Wangui Wambaa, Harrison Mwituria Muchiri, Harun Mwangi Karuga, Josphat Ndungu Mungai, Nazario Kariuki Wamworia, David Muriithi Kabiru, Nancy Muthoni Waithaka, Selestino Mutuma Muthuku, Lucy Gathoni Munga, Janet Wangui Munoru, Simon Mwangi Mugi, Peter Kihara, Simon Mbogo Mburu; Respondent: Nyandarua County Government; Respondent: Nyandarua Public Service Board; Respondent: Public Service Commission; Respondent: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 434 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Employment Contracts, Public Service Recruitment
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Anthony Gitau Waweru, Teressah Wangui Wambaa, Harrison Mwituria Muchiri, Harun Mwangi Karuga, Josphat Ndungu Mungai, Nazario Kariuki Wamworia, David Muriithi Kabiru, Nancy Muthoni Waithaka, Selestino Mutuma Muthuku, Lucy Gathoni Munga, Janet Wangui Munoru, Simon Mwangi Mugi, Peter Kihara, Simon Mbogo Mburu
Applicant
Nyandarua County Government
Respondent
Nyandarua Public Service Board
Respondent
Public Service Commission
Respondent
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Claimants are entitled to interim injunctive orders restraining the Respondents from recruiting new Youth Polytechnic Instructors in Nyandarua County.
- 2 Whether the Claimants have demonstrated a violation of contractual or statutory rights by the Respondents in the recruitment process.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the Claimants were not seeking to protect their individual contracts but rather to restrain the Respondents from recruiting any new Youth Polytechnic Instructors. Granting such an order would constitute an unwarranted intrusion into the employer's discretion to manage its operations and could have unintended legal consequences. Furthermore, the Claimants failed to demonstrate any specific contractual or statutory right that would be violated by the Respondents' recruitment process. As a result, the legal threshold for granting an interlocutory injunction, as established in Giella v Cassman Brown, was not met. The application was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The motion dated 21 October 2016 is dismissed.
- Costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
50 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAKURU
CAUSE NO. 434 OF 2016
ANTHONY GITAU WAWERU
TERESSAH WANGUI WAMBAA
HARRISON MWITURIA MUCHIRI
HARUN MWANGI KARUGA
JOSPHAT NDUNGU MUNGAI
NAZARIO KARIUKI WAMWORIA
DAVID MURIITHI KABIRU
NANCY MUTHONI WAITHAKA
SELESTINO MUTUMA MUTHUKU
LUCY GATHONI MUNGA
JANET WANGUI MUNORU
SIMON MWANGI MUGI
PETER KIHARA
SIMON MBOGO MBURU CLAIMANTS
v
NYANDARUA COUNTY GOVERNMENT 1ST RESPONDENT
NYANDARUA PUBLIC SERVICE
BOARD 2ND RESPONDENT
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 3RD RESPONDENT
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY 4TH RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Claimants (ESP Youth Instructors currently on contract) in a motion presented to Court under certificate of urgency on 24 October 2016 sought the following orders
1. THAT this application be certified extremely urgent and leave be granted for the same to be heard ex-parte, service thereof being dispensed with.
2. THAT pending the inter-partes hearing hereof, this Honourable Court be pleased to issue interim orders of injunction barring the 2nd Respondent, whether by themselves or through their agents, servants or employees from illegally interviewing, selecting, recruiting, employing or absorbing new Youth Polytechnic instructors in the Nyandarua County Department of Education and ICT.
3. THAT pending the hearing and determination of this claim, this Honourable Court be pleased to issue interim orders of injunction barring the 2nd Respondent, whether by themselves or through their agents, servants or employees from illegally interviewing, selecting, recruiting, employing or absorbing new Youth Polytechnic instructors in the Nyandarua County Department of Education and ICT.
4. THAT the costs of this application be borne by the Respondents.
2. When the motion was placed before Court, the Court directed that it be served for inter partes hearing on 8 November 2016.
3. The Respondents were all served and an affidavit of service sworn by Davidson Warutere Iregi attests to the service.
4. However, when the motion was called out on 8 November 2016, none of the Respondents had placed on record grounds of opposition or replying affidavits (3rd and 4th Respondents did not appear).
5. An attempt by the 1st and 2nd Respondents to secure an adjournment in order to file appropriate responses to the motion was declined though these Respondents were allowed to make oral submissions on points of law.
6. The Court has given due consideration to the motion and grounds in support thereof, the supporting affidavit and oral submissions made in Court.
7. The legal test to be met in an application such as the instant one were set out long ago in the case of Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd (1973) EA 358 and need no outlining here.
8. In the present motion, the Claimants, instead of seeking to secure and/or safeguard their individual contracts are seeking an order to restrain the Respondents from employing any more Youth Polytechnic Instructors.
9. Such an order would not only mean the Court is intruding unnecessarily into an employer’s discretion to run its business and operations, but also have unintended legal consequences.
10. In any case, the Claimants have not demonstrated which contractual or statutory right the Respondents would be violating in recruiting more Youth Polytechnic Instructors.
11. In the view of the Court, granting the order sought in the circumstances of this case would not be legally tenable or prudent.
12. In the circumstances, the Court finds no merit in the motion dated 21 October 2016 and orders that it be dismissed.
13. Costs in the Cause.
Delivered, dated and signed in Nakuru on this 18th day of November 2016.
Radido Stephen
Judge
Appearances
For Claimants Mr. Warutere instructed by Warutere & Associates
For 1st – 2nd Respondents Ms. Nyambura, Director, Legal Affairs, County Government of Nyandarua
For 3rd – 4th Respondents did not participate in motion
Court Assistant Daisy