Kamore v Smep Michrofinance Bank Plc (Cause E992 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3606 (KLR) (16 December 2025) (Ruling)

Kamore v Smep Michrofinance Bank Plc (Cause E992 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3606 (KLR) (16 December 2025) (Ruling)

The Claimant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case that the disciplinary process was unlawful or unfair, nor that he would suffer irreparable harm. The employer's process did not breach the law, contract, HR policy, or rules of natural justice. The threshold for granting an interlocutory injunction was not met.

Citation
[2025] KEELRC 3606 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Symon Kamore; Respondent: SMEP Microfinance Bank PLC
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
16 December 2025
Case Number
Cause E992 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Employment and Labour Relations Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application (notice of Motion)
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Process, Injunctions, Jurisdiction of Employment Court, Unlawful Termination, Performance Improvement Plans
Source Language
English
Employment Law Labour Law Disciplinary Process Injunctions Jurisdiction of Employment Court Unlawful Termination Performance Improvement Plans

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Symon Kamore

Claimant

SMEP Microfinance Bank PLC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment and Labour Relations Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application (notice of Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to interfere with the internal disciplinary process before exhaustion
  2. 2 Whether an injunction order should be awarded to restrain the disciplinary process

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case that the disciplinary process was unlawful or unfair, nor that he would suffer irreparable harm. The employer's process did not breach the law, contract, HR policy, or rules of natural justice. The threshold for granting an interlocutory injunction was not met.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Orders

  • Claimant’s Notice of Motion dated 13th October 2025 is dismissed with costs.