Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment as provided

Dima v Kenya National Trading Corporation Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E211 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1220 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
30 April 2025
HWHellen Wasilwa
1,699 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a bid to halt a job appointment revocation because the revocation had already happened, leaving nothing for interim orders to stop.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, who had been recruited and appointed by the Respondent as Business Development Manager, KNTC 3 on a five-year contract commencing 1st January 2025, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 19th December 2024 seeking conservatory orders suspending the Respondent's decision, communicated by email of 17th December 2024, revoking his appointment. The application was anchored on Article 23(3)(a) of the Constitution and Rule 23 of the Mutunga Rules. The Applicant argued that the revocation amounted to unfair termination infringing his rights to dignity, fair labour practices and fair administrative action, and that he had a prima facie case, having resigned from Vernadsky Investment Limited and relocated from Mombasa to Nairobi in reliance on the appointment. He relied on Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Kithinji on the test for conservatory orders. The Respondent, through a replying affidavit of Maureen Dwallo, opposed the application, contending that the recruitment required mandatory qualifications, that the Applicant's certificates from the Institute of Economic Affairs contained conflicting validity dates raising authenticity concerns, and that the revocation was lawful to safeguard the integrity of the recruitment process. The court did not resolve these contested issues, holding that the application sought to stop an appointment that had already been revoked and was therefore overtaken by events. The application was found unmerited and disallowed, with the petitioner directed to proceed with the main petition and costs reserved to the petition.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Applicant has met the threshold for issuance of conservatory orders pending the hearing of the application and the Petition

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether conservatory orders could issue to suspend a revocation decision that had already been made and communicated

Holding

The application was dismissed as moot because the revocation had already occurred; there was nothing left to suspend pending hearing

Reasoning

The court observed that the motion sought to stop an appointment which had already been revoked by the email of 17th December 2024. Since the injurious decision was already in place, the conservatory orders sought (whether pending inter partes hearing, determination of the application, or the Petition) could not serve any practical purpose. The application was therefore overtaken by events, found unmerited, and disallowed, with the petitioner left to pursue the substantive Petition.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An interlocutory application seeking conservatory orders that would preserve a state of affairs already reversed cannot stand, being overtaken by events; such an application is unmerited and should be disallowed

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 19th December 2024 seeking conservatory orders is disallowed as unmerited
  2. 2.The petitioner to proceed with the main petition
  3. 3.Costs in the petition

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

HW
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Article 23(3)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and Rule 23 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013 (Mutunga Rules)

Relief refused

#

Conservatory orders suspending the Respondent's decision contained in an email dated 17th December 2024 revoking the appointment to the position of Business Development Manager, KNTC 3

The application sought to stop an appointment that had already been revoked, and was therefore overtaken by events (moot)

p. 4

Costs

Costs in the petition (no costs awarded on the application; costs reserved to the main petition)

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 application sought to stop an appointment by the respondent which appointment had already been revoked. The application cannot therefore stand having been overtaken by events.
p. 4mootness - conservatory orders cannot issue to suspend an already-taken decision
I therefore find the application not merited and I disallow it accordingly. The petitioner to proceed with main petition. Costs in the petition.
p. 4final orders - dismissal of the application and costs

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment refers to the 'Respondent' revoking the appointment but never expressly names the Respondent as a party in the style of cause; the Respondent is identifiable only from the pleadings as Kenya National Trading Corporation Limited (KNTC)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Dima v Kenya National Trading Corporation Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E211 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1220 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1220/eng@2025-04-30

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.