Mwalah v Kenya Literature Bureau & 6 others; Public Service Commission (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E063 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2106 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court refused to suspend the acting Managing Director of Kenya Literature Bureau, saying continuity of public service outweighed the challenge until the full case is heard.
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 principles for grant of a temporary injunction (prima facie case, irreparable harm, balance of convenience) have been satisfied
- 2.Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the application and petition absent an employer-employee relationship
- 3.Whether the Petitioner has locus standi
- 4.Whether the 6th Respondent was a public officer at the time of appointment
- 5.Whether the appointment of the 6th Respondent as Acting Managing Director was unlawful
Key legal issues
#Whether to grant interim orders suspending/staying the 6th Respondent's appointment as Acting Managing Director
Application dismissed; balance of convenience favoured allowing the 6th Respondent to continue pending full hearing of the petition
The court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown principles. It noted the 6th Respondent was appointed for six months expiring 20th September 2025, that the orders sought mirrored the main petition's prayers, and that the 1st Respondent is a public entity whose mandate relates to the lives of school children. To avoid a lacuna in management of the Bureau, the court held the balance of convenience lay in declining interim relief and directing parties to conclude the petition.
Jurisdiction and locus standi objections by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents
The court did not expressly determine the jurisdiction and locus standi objections, instead directing parties to proceed to the full petition
The 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents argued the court lacked jurisdiction absent an employer-employee relationship and that the Petitioner was a bystander without locus standi, citing Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lillian S' and Anarita Karimi Njeru. The 6th Respondent likewise challenged standing. The court recorded these submissions but resolved the motion on the balance of convenience, leaving the objections for determination at the hearing of the petition.
Legal principles established
#- Interim injunction applications are governed by the Giella v Cassman Brown principles of prima facie case, irreparable harm and balance of convenience
Court orders
#- 1.Application dismissed; no orders as prayed
- 2.Parties directed to proceed and conclude the entire petition
- 3.Costs in the petition
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution as read with Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (jurisdiction contested by respondents)
Relief refused
#Suspension/stay of the appointment of the 6th Respondent as Acting Managing Director
Balance of convenience tilted against granting interim orders given the 1st Respondent's public mandate
Temporary injunction restraining the 6th Respondent from performing duties of Acting Managing Director
Not granted at interlocutory stage
Order directing appointment of an Acting Managing Director from among qualifying directors of the Bureau
Refused as part of the interim reliefs
Costs
Costs in the 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.
I will therefore not grant any orders as prayed and I direct the parties to proceed and conclude the entire petition. Costs in the petition.
In view of the fact that the 1st respondent is a public entity where their mandate relates to the lives of school children and given the need to avoid a lacuna in its management in order to render its series, I find that the balance of convenience will tilt in favour of not allowing the application at this stage so that the court considers the petition in its entirety.
The principles as established by the Court of Appeal in Giella vs Cassman Brown is that a prima facie case with a likelihood of success must be established; demonstrate irreparable harm/damage if the injunction is not granted; the balance of convenience lies in the grant of the said orders.
I note that the 6th respondent was appointed in this acting position for 6 months with effect from 20th March 2025. The 6 months are set to lapse by 20th September 2025. I also note that the orders sought in the application are similar to those being sought in the main petition.
Issues in the judgment
#The 6th Respondent is inconsistently described as having retired in March 2024 versus serving under a contract extension; also the judgment recites the appointment as effective both 21st March 2025 and 20th March 2025 in different passages
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mwalah v Kenya Literature Bureau & 6 others; Public Service Commission (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E063 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2106 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2106/eng@2025-07-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.