Mohamed Bayaan Adan v Kenya Meat Commission [2021] KEELRC 669 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court declined to reinstate a former ICT Manager at an early stage because his fixed-term contract had already lapsed, reserving all questions for full trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether to stay the respondent's decision of 14th April, 2021 terminating (non-renewal of) the claimant's employment as ICT Manager
- 2.Whether to reinstate the claimant to the position of ICT Manager
- 3.Whether to restrain the respondent from advertising or assigning the duties of ICT Manager to any other person pending full hearing of the claim
Key legal issues
#Whether reinstatement and stay could issue at an interlocutory stage
No. Reinstatement is a remedy of specific performance governed by section 49(4) Employment Act, section 12(3) ELRC Act and Rule 17(10) ELRC (Procedure) Rules; granting it, or staying the non-renewal of a lapsed fixed-term contract, before full trial would deprive the court of material evidence and the respondent of a key operational function.
The court noted the claimant's own admission that his 3-month term contract lapsed on 14th April, 2021. Restoring him would revive a lapsed term of undefined duration. Citing the Court of Appeal in Kenya Airways Ltd v Aviation & Allied Workers Union, reinstatement requires consideration of practicability and the exceptional-circumstances rule for specific performance. Rule 17(10) bars ex parte reinstatement orders. Fairness of the termination was left for full trial.
Whether the fairness of the non-renewal/termination should be determined on the application
No; the merits of the termination were expressly left for the full trial
The court held it would not go into the merits of the alleged unfair termination on an interlocutory application, since determining stay and reinstatement prematurely would foreclose evidence ordinarily available at trial. The application was confined to whether the interim orders sought were justifiable at that stage.
Legal principles established
#- Reinstatement requires specific performance and should not be granted except in very exceptional circumstances, guided by section 49(4) of the Employment Act
- The court will not grant reinstatement or restraints on recruitment at an interlocutory stage where the term contract has lapsed, as this would deprive the court of evidence available at full trial
Court orders
#- 1.Application dated 17th September, 2021 declined
- 2.Costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 43, 45(2) and (5) of the Employment Act; Articles 23, 41 and 47 of the Constitution; Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016
Relief refused
#Stay of the respondent's decision of 14th April, 2021 terminating the claimant's employment as ICT Manager
The claimant's 3-month term contract lapsed on its own terms on 14th April, 2021; staying the decision would revert parties to a lapsed contract and would deny the court material evidence available at full trial
Reinstatement of the claimant to the position of ICT Manager
Reinstatement requires specific performance, is governed by section 49(4) Employment Act, section 12(3) ELRC Act and Rule 17(10) ELRC Rules, and should not be granted at an interlocutory stage
Restraining order stopping the respondent from advertising or assigning the duties of ICT Manager
Such an order would deny the respondent a key function of its operations without the court taking evidence
Costs
Costs in the cause
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Accordingly, application dated 17th September, 2021 is declined. Costs in the cause.
the Court is required to be guided by factors stipulated in section 49(4) of the Employment Act which includes the practicability of reinstatement or re-engagement and the common law principle that specific performance in a contract of employment should not be offered except in very exceptional circumstances
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Rule, the Court shall not grant an ex parte order that reinstates into employment an employee whose services have been terminated.
To stop the respondent from advertising the position of ICT manager at this stage taking the above into account and the claimant having acknowledged that his term contract ended on 14 th April, 2021 would be to deny the respondent a key function of its operations without the court taking evidence.
Issues in the judgment
#The claimant is referred to inconsistently as 'IT Administrator', 'IT assistant manager' and 'ICT manager' across the affidavits summarised; the judgment also contains typographical errors ('14 th aril, 2021'; 'Nyantu'/'Nyauntu')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Olago & another v Homabay County Assembly Service Board & 3 others (Miscellaneous Case E051 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2623 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2623 (KLR)30 Sept 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mohamed Bayaan Adan v Kenya Meat Commission [2021] KEELRC 669 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/669/eng@2021-10-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.