Chika v Technical University of Kenya (Cause E259 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2432 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan university lecturer who retired at 70 failed to get reinstated before trial, because salary losses are compensable and reinstatement at an early stage is rare.
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 Claimant has a prima facie case with a probability of success that the retirement age of 74 years in the CBA applies to her
- 2.Whether the Claimant will suffer irreparable damage not compensable in damages
- 3.Where the balance of convenience lies
- 4.Whether a mandatory injunction or an order of reinstatement can issue at the interlocutory stage
Key legal issues
#Prima facie case
The court could not determine on preliminary material whether the CBA retirement age of 74 applied to the Claimant; hence no prima facie case was established
The dispute over whether the CBA signed on 23rd November 2024 applied to a claimant who had attained age 70 on 23rd September 2024 but retired on 31st December 2024 turns on evidence and the retrospective effect of the CBA, which can only be resolved at full trial.
Irreparable damage
Loss of salary is quantifiable and compensable in damages
Because the claimant's prospective salary loss over five years can be projected and calculated, damages would be an adequate remedy, defeating the second Giella condition for an interim injunction.
Mandatory injunction/reinstatement at interlocutory stage
Such orders require exceptional circumstances, which the Claimant did not demonstrate
The claimant approached the court after retirement had taken effect, seeking restoration to employment interlocutorily. Following Kiragu v Murimi, Alfred Nyungu Kimungii v Bomas of Kenya and Kenya Tea Growers Association, the court held exceptional circumstances are required and none were shown.
Legal principles established
#- A mandatory injunction or an order reinstating an employee will seldom issue at the interlocutory stage unless exceptional circumstances are shown
- A quantifiable loss of salary is not irreparable damage since it is capable of compensation in damages
Court orders
#- 1.The prayers sought in the application dated 28th March 2025 are declined
- 2.The application is dismissed
- 3.Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the suit
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; application under the ELRC Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Interim injunction restraining the Respondent from advertising or recruiting to fill the Claimant's position
No prima facie case established on preliminary material; loss quantifiable; balance of convenience against grant
Reinstatement or re-engagement pending hearing and determination of the suit
Mandatory injunction/reinstatement orders seldom issue at interlocutory stage absent exceptional circumstances; none shown
Costs
Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the suit.
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 court cannot, on the basis of the preliminary material before it, determine whether the Claimant has a prima facie case with a probability of success
the fact that the salary which the Claimant is likely to lose if the injunction does not issue can be projected renders her potential loss quantifiable and capable of compensation in damages
Such orders may only issue at the interlocutory stage of a case if there are exceptional circumstances to justify their grant
the court declines the prayers sought by the Claimant in the application dated 28th March 2025
Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the suit
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the CBA's effective date was backdated to July 2024 in one passage but describes the CBA as covering the period between 1st July 2021 and 30th June 2025 in another
The claimant's date of birth (23rd September 1954) is inconsistent with her stated age of 70 at signing of the CBA on 23rd November 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chika v Technical University of Kenya (Cause E259 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2432 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2432/eng@2025-09-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.