Nzuki v South Eastern Kenya University & another (Cause E032 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1609 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court refused to stop South Eastern Kenya University from filling the employee's old job because the claimant's lawsuit targeted his suspension, not his dismissal.
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 applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success to warrant a temporary injunction
- 2.Whether the applicant demonstrated irreparable injury not compensable in damages and where the balance of convenience lies
- 3.Whether the temporary injunction restraining advertisement and filling of the position of Assistant Director, Facilities Management & Administration should issue pending hearing of the main suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established the Giella principles for a temporary injunction
The application failed on the first Giella test; no prima facie case was demonstrated as the alleged unfairness and bias had no apparent or obvious evidential support and could only be resolved at full hearing
The court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown principles. On the material filed, the allegations of unfair suspension, summary dismissal as an afterthought, and bias in the administrative appeal minutes lacked apparent or obvious evidence. The court agreed with the respondents that the matters were premature and could only be resolved one way or the other after the full hearing of the suit.
Whether the relief sought matched the suit as pleaded
The suit challenged the suspension, not the summary dismissal, so an injunction premised on a future reinstatement order did not serve any potential final relief; the balance of convenience favoured the respondents
The court observed that the pleadings challenged only the suspension, while the injunction sought protection against consequences of the later summary dismissal. The applicant had not promptly amended the suit to anchor the injunction on a proposed reinstatement order. Granting the injunction while the suit stood as pleaded would seriously prejudice the respondents without serving the ends of justice.
Legal principles established
#- The principles for grant of a temporary injunction are establishment of a prima facie case with probability of success; irreparable injury not adequately remedied by money; and, if in doubt, balance of convenience
Court orders
#- 1.The application is dismissed with costs in the cause
- 2.The Deputy Registrar to return the case file to the Machakos sub registry forthwith
- 3.Parties to take a convenient mention date for further orders and directions towards the expeditious hearing and determination of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 2(6), 22, 47(1) and 48 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010; section 49(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the 1st respondent from advertising or filling the position of Assistant Director, Facilities Management & Administration pending hearing and determination of the main cause
No prima facie case with probability of success was demonstrated; the suit as pleaded challenged the suspension and not the summary dismissal, and the balance of convenience favours the respondents
Costs of the application sought by the applicant
Application dismissed with costs in the cause against the applicant
Costs
The application is dismissed with 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.
the applicant must establish a prima facie case with a probability of success at trial; demonstrate irreparable injury which cannot be adequately remedied with money if the injunction is declined; and, if in doubt, show the balance of convenience is in the applicant’s favour
it appears that the applicant has not demonstrated a prima facie case with probability of success
the court considers that upon balance of convenience, it would be seriously prejudicial to the respondents for the injunction to issue as prayed for and while, at the end of hearing of the suit as pleaded, no potential relief would be served as being aided by the temporary injunction
The application is dismissed with costs in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment cites 'section 50(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules' although the Civil Procedure Rules provisions are ordinarily numbered as Order/rule rather than 'section'; quoted as it appears in the judgment
The application date (27.03.2025) precedes the dismissal of the administrative appeal (19.03.2025) consistently, but the pleaded suit predates the summary dismissal of 03.02.2025, which the court notes as a mismatch in relief; recorded for completeness
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nzuki v South Eastern Kenya University & another (Cause E032 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1609 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1609/eng@2025-05-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.