Kinoti & 2 others v Directline Assurance Company Limited (Cause E1059 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1058 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court refused to shield three employees from dismissal mid-case, ruling such disputes need full evidence—not interim orders.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the second Notice of Preliminary Objection filed on 7 March 2025 should be determined
- 2.Whether the 2nd and 3rd Claimants, whose disputes were said to be settled out of court, should be granted any orders
- 3.Whether the interlocutory orders sought in the Motion dated 11 December 2024 (restraint from termination, reinstatement and suspension of compulsory leave letters) should issue pending hearing of the Cause
Key legal issues
#Whether interlocutory injunction and reinstatement orders should issue pending trial
The Motion was dismissed; the court declined to preserve the employment relationship at an interlocutory stage in a case premised on constructive dismissal
The gravamen of the claim was constructive dismissal on the basis of a hostile work environment. Granting orders requiring employees to render services would contradict the very doctrine pleaded. Whether fair labour rights were violated required testing of evidence from both parties, which cannot be done at the interlocutory stage. For the 2nd and 3rd Claimants, the unrebutted deposition of settlement and resumption of duty made orders imprudent.
Treatment of a preliminary objection filed out of sequence after directions
The second Notice of Preliminary Objection filed 7 March 2025 was not addressed because the Claimants had no opportunity to respond
The objection was filed after the Court had issued directions and after submissions timelines had lapsed. Procedural fairness required that the Claimants be granted an opportunity to respond before the Court could rule on it, so the Court declined to address it in the Ruling.
Legal principles established
#- A court at the interlocutory stage should not interrogate disputed facts or evaluate alleged violations of fair labour rights before evidence is tested
- The court will not entertain a preliminary objection filed after directions have been given and to which the opposing party has had no opportunity to respond
- Where deponed settlement and resumption of duty are unrebutted, no interlocutory orders will issue in favour of those claimants
Court orders
#- 1.The Motion dated 11 December 2024 is dismissed
- 2.The Respondent is denied costs of the Motion
- 3.The Respondent's second Notice of Preliminary Objection filed on 7 March 2025 is not addressed, having been filed after directions were given and without the Claimants being given an opportunity to respond
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Articles 35 and 41 of the Constitution pleaded by the Claimants; specific enabling provision not stated in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Interlocutory injunction restraining the Respondent from terminating the Claimants' employment, reinstatement, and suspension of the compulsory leave letters
The 2nd and 3rd Claimants' disputes had been settled out of court with no rebuttal, and the interlocutory stage does not permit interrogation of disputed facts; preserving an employment relationship in an alleged hostile work environment would be antithetical to the doctrine of constructive dismissal
Costs
Costs of the Motion denied to the Respondent: 'The Respondent missed several milestones for filing documents as directed by the Court. It is denied costs of the Motion.'
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.
The Motion dated 11 December 2024 is found without merit, and it is dismissed.
The Respondent missed several milestones for filing documents as directed by the Court. It is denied costs of the Motion.
At this interlocutory stage, the Court is not expected to get into an interrogation of disputed facts.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the same relief seeking to compel memos with inconsistent dates (6th December 2014 vs 6th December 2024) and contains a typo in the constructive dismissal preliminary objection ('termination during principle (g)')
The pleading of reliefs (paragraph 3) is interrupted by paragraph 4 mid-list, and some prayers of the Motion are blanked out with ellipses
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kinoti & 2 others v Directline Assurance Company Limited (Cause E1059 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1058 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Cause filed 11 December 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1058/eng@2025-04-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.