[2016] KEELRC 332 (KLR)
The Court found that the Claimants were not seeking to protect their individual contracts but rather to restrain the Respondents from employing any more Youth Polytechnic instructors. Granting such an order would amount to unwarranted judicial interference in the employer's discretion to manage its business and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELRC 332 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Paul Wainaina Karanja, James Njuguna Mwoho, Nancy Wanjiku Kihara, Benson Nganga Mwangi, Francis Ikanga Mucira, Mary Wanjiku Kamau, Paul Kamau Waiguru, Hiram Maimba Kiruhi, David Kamau Kuria, Paul Muchina Mwangi, Mercy Njeri Wanyiri, Mary Muthoni Kuria, Samuel Ndiritu Muhia, Peter Njenga Kangere, Gladys Njeri Kariuki; 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 433 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Interim Injunction Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Interim Injunctions, 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
Paul Wainaina Karanja, James Njuguna Mwoho, Nancy Wanjiku Kihara, Benson Nganga Mwangi, Francis Ikanga Mucira, Mary Wanjiku Kamau, Paul Kamau Waiguru, Hiram Maimba Kiruhi, David Kamau Kuria, Paul Muchina Mwangi, Mercy Njeri Wanyiri, Mary Muthoni Kuria, Samuel Ndiritu Muhia, Peter Njenga Kangere, Gladys Njeri Kariuki
Applicant
Nyandarua County Government
Respondent
Nyandarua Public Service Board
Respondent
Public Service Commission
Respondent
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Interim 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 violation of any contractual or statutory right 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 employing any more Youth Polytechnic instructors. Granting such an order would amount to unwarranted judicial interference in the employer's discretion to manage its business and could have unintended legal consequences. The Claimants failed to demonstrate any specific contractual or statutory right that would be violated by the Respondents' recruitment of new instructors. Consequently, the legal threshold for granting an interlocutory injunction was not met, and the application was 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
51 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAKURU
CAUSE NO. 433 OF 2016
PAUL WAINAINA KARANJA
JAMES NJUGUNA MWOHO
NANCY WANJIKU KIHARA
BENSON NGANGA MWANGI
FRANCIS IKANGA MUCIRA
MARY WANJIKU KAMAU
PAUL KAMAU WAIGURU
HIRAM MAIMBA KIRUHI
DAVID KAMAU KURIA
PAUL MUCHINA MWANGI
MERCY NJERI WANYIRI
MARY MUTHONI KURIA
SAMUEL NDIRITU MUHIA
PETER NJENGA KANGERE
GLADYS NJERI KARIUKI 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 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. However, the Court allowed these 2 Respondents 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 orders 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