[2021] KEELRC 1860 (KLR)

[2021] KEELRC 1860 (KLR)

The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would justify the court's intervention in the ongoing disciplinary process. The fact that the suspension exceeded the period provided for in the disciplinary instrument was not, in itself, sufficient to warrant interlocutory...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELRC 1860 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Caroline Namwenya Wanyama; Respondent: National Government Affirmative Action Fund
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 102 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction and Conservatory Orders
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Procedure, Suspension of Employee, Interlocutory Injunctions, Conservatory Orders
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Disciplinary Procedure Suspension of Employee Interlocutory Injunctions Conservatory Orders

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Caroline Namwenya Wanyama

Applicant

National Government Affirmative Action Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction and Conservatory Orders

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to interlocutory injunction restraining the respondent from terminating her employment pending determination of the cause.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a conservatory order lifting her suspension pending determination of the application.
  3. 3 Whether the court should intervene in an ongoing disciplinary process due to alleged excessive suspension period.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would justify the court's intervention in the ongoing disciplinary process. The fact that the suspension exceeded the period provided for in the disciplinary instrument was not, in itself, sufficient to warrant interlocutory relief. The court emphasized that any unlawfulness in the suspension could be remedied by an award of remuneration at the conclusion of the hearing if the applicant succeeded. Accordingly, the application for interlocutory injunctions and conservatory orders was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Motion dated 4 November 2019 is dismissed.
  • Costs in the cause.