[2017] KEELRC 1347 (KLR)
The court found that the application was unopposed, as the respondent failed to file any defence or appear despite being served. In the absence of any opposition, and upon consideration of the applicant's submissions, the court was satisfied that the claimant had established a prima facie case warranting the grant...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELRC 1347 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stephen Kiprotich Koech; Respondent: Hon. Edwin K. Barchilei
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 12 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction and Reinstatement
- Outcome
- interlocutory injunction granted; costs awarded to applicant
- Judges
- DKN Marete
- Legal Topics
- Injunction Against Replacement, Reinstatement to Employment, Withheld Salaries, Unfair Termination, Interlocutory Relief
- 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
Stephen Kiprotich Koech
Applicant
Hon. Edwin K. Barchilei
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction and Reinstatement
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to an injunction restraining the respondent from filling his position pending determination of the claim.
- 2 Whether the claimant should be reinstated to his position as Office Assistant pending hearing and determination of the claim.
- 3 Whether the respondent should pay withheld salary and allowances to the claimant pending determination of the claim.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application was unopposed, as the respondent failed to file any defence or appear despite being served. In the absence of any opposition, and upon consideration of the applicant's submissions, the court was satisfied that the claimant had established a prima facie case warranting the grant of an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent from filling the claimant's position as Office Assistant. The court further ordered that the costs of the application be borne by the respondent. The court did not address the other prayers for reinstatement or payment of withheld salaries at this interlocutory stage, limiting its orders to the injunction and costs.
Court Disposition
interlocutory injunction granted; costs awarded to applicant
Orders
- The respondent is restrained by an injunction from filling the claimant’s position as Office Assistant pending hearing and determination of this claim.
- The cost of this application shall be borne by the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF KENYA
AT KERICHO
CAUSE NO. 12 OF 2017
(Before D. K. N. Marete)
STEPHEN KIPROTICH KOECH..................…….............CLAIMANT
VERSUS
HON. EDWIN K. BARCHILEI ………………………RESPONDENT
RULING
This is an application by the Claimant/Applicant dated 17th February, 2017, seeking the following orders of court;
1. THAT service of this application be dispensed with in the first instance.
2. THAT the respondent be restrained by an injunction from filing in the claimant’s position as an Office Assistant pending the hearing and determination of this application in the first instance and thereafter pending the hearing and determination of the claim herein.
3. THAT the claimant be reinstated to employment as an Office Assistant of the respondent pending the hearing and determination of the claim herein.
4. THAT the respondent does pay the full withheld salary and allowances of the claimant for the month of February, 2017 and continues to pay the salaries on a monthly basis in full pending the hearing and determination of this application in the first instance thereafter pending the hearing and determination of claim herein.
5. THAT upon reinstatement, the respondent be restrained by way of ainjunction from unlawfully and unfairly terminating the claimant’semployment or withholding any payments of salaries and allowances and employment benefits pending the hearing and determination of the claim herein.
6. THAT the costs of this application be sourced by the respondent.
The application is not defended, or at all. This is despite service to the respondent.
When the application came for hearing on 24th April, 2017 counsel for the applicant applied that the application be allowed with costs to the tune of Kshs.10,000. 00 being the days costs to the applicant.
In the absence of a defence, or any semblance of the same, I am inclined to allow the claim and order as follows;
i. That the Respondent be and is hereby restrained by an injunction from filling the claimant’s position as an Office Assistant pending hearing and determination of this claim.
ii. That the cost of this application shall be borne by the respondent.
Delivered, dated and signed this 26th day of April 2017.
D.K.Njagi Marete
JUDGE
Appearances
1. Mr. Mogambi instructed by Wambua Kigamwa & Company Advocates for the Claimant/Applicant
2. No appearance for the Respondent.