[2018] KEELRC 314 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold for grant of an interim injunction as set out in Giella v Cassman Brown. The letters of termination were not backdated, and the application was filed after the terminations had already taken effect. Granting the injunction would amount to reinstating...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 314 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Union of Kenya Civil Servants; Respondent: Homabay County Public Service Board; Respondent: County Secretary Homabay County; Respondent: The Governor Homabay County
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 260 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Application for Interim Injunction
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- MN Nduma
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Termination, Injunctive Relief, Procedural Fairness, Employment Contracts
- 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
Union of Kenya Civil Servants
Applicant
Homabay County Public Service Board
Respondent
County Secretary Homabay County
Respondent
The Governor Homabay County
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Application for Interim Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction.
- 2 Whether the termination notices were irregular or backdated.
- 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold for grant of an interim injunction as set out in Giella v Cassman Brown. The letters of termination were not backdated, and the application was filed after the terminations had already taken effect. Granting the injunction would amount to reinstating the grievants before the suit is heard on its merits, which is not appropriate at this interlocutory stage. The balance of convenience favoured allowing the suit to proceed to full hearing rather than granting interim relief.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for interim injunction is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT KISUMU
CAUSE NO. 260 OF 2018
(Before Hon. Justice Mathews N. Nduma)
UNION OF KENYA CIVIL SERVANTS..............................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
1. HOMABAY COUNTY PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD
2. COUNTY SECRETARY HOMABAY COUNTY
3. THE GOVERNOR HOMABAY COUNTY...............RESPONDENTS
R U L I N G
1. The Applicant seeks an order suspending the operationalization of the notices of termination of the Claimants’ members’ contracts dated 20th April, 2018 and restraining the Respondents from advertising for the positions held by the Claimants’ members named pending the hearing and determination of the claim.
2. The application is based on the grounds set out on the face of the Notice of Motion to wit:-
a. The 2nd Respondent has issued back dated notices of termination of the Claimants’ members’ jobs without authority of the 1st Respondent.
b. The Respondent may at any time advertise for the positions held by the Claimants.
c. The conduct by the 2nd Respondent amounts to unfair labour practice since the employees were not given any hearing.
Response
3. The Respondents filed a replying affidavit sworn by Mr. George Illah, Principal Legal Officer of the Respondents. He states that the employees were illegal ghost employees and their application has no merit. That termination notices were issues to stop spiraling wage bill of the Respondents that had arisen due to irregularities and collusion of the employees.
4. The Respondents pray that the application be dismissed with costs.
Determination
5. For an application for interim injunction to issue, the applicant must satisfy the requirements set out in the case of Giella vs Cassman Brown by –
i. Establishing a prima facie case with probability of success.
ii. By showing that the applicants are likely to incur irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted and
iii. The balance of convenience favours the grant of the injunction.
6. The Claimant presented letters of appointment of the grievants and notices of termination of the appointments. Whereas the letters of appointments produced bear signatures and the names of the author, all the letters of termination annexed to the application are incomplete and do not show the persons who wrote them.
7. Secondly, the purported terminations were with effect from 1st July, 2018 and the letters of termination are dated 20th April, 2018. It is therefore not correct to say, as was submitted by counsel for the Applicants that the terminations were backdated.
8. Furthermore, the Application was filed on 12th July, 2018 after the termination letters had taken effect.
9. Courts of equity do not issue injunctions in vain. The horse had already bolted from the Kennel by the time the application for injunction was filed.
10. The prayer as framed, amounts to reinstating the grievants to their positions before the hearing and determination of the suit.
11. Accordingly, the balance of convenience in this case is for the suit to be heard and determined on merits before any orders are issued if at all, in favour of the grievants.
12. The application is dismissed with costs.
Dated, Delivered and Signed in Kisumu this 20th day of December, 2018
Mathews N. Nduma
Judge
Appearances
Mr. Nyamwea for Claimant/Applicant
M/s Adoyo for Respondent
Chrispo – Court Clerk