Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (interlocutory application within a constitutional petition; Notice of Motion dated 4th April 2025)· [2025] KEELRC 2922 (KLR)

Shabdin v Registered Trustees of the Sisters of Mercy (Kenya) t/a Mater Misericordiae Hospital (Petition E006 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2922 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 October 2025
1,625 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

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi (Hellen Wasilwa, J) delivered virtually on 27th October 2025 on a Notice of Motion dated 4th April 2025 filed by the Respondent/Applicant, Mater Misericordiae Hospital. The applicant sought discharge of two conservatory orders issued in a ruling of 27th March 2025 - one restraining the transfer of the Petitioner from Nairobi to Thika Medical Centre, and the other directing her reinstatement to her initial workstation and work schedule pending the hearing and determination of the petition. The applicant explained that counsel did not attend the online delivery of the ruling because the Deputy Registrar's notice indicated the judge would be on leave from 17th to 28th March 2025 and matters would be given new dates. It contended that the petitioner's summary dismissal on 4th February 2025, following a disciplinary process conducted without a court order stopping it, dissipated the substratum of the orders, making compliance impossible and exposing the Trustees to contempt. The petitioner opposed, arguing the dismissal process was initiated to circumvent the pending constitutional petition founded on Articles 41, 47 and 50, and that no material change of circumstances justified discharge, relying on Giella v Cassman Brown and CORD v Republic of Kenya. The court held that the application had been overtaken by events, since in a ruling on an application dated 10th June 2025 it had found no evidence that the petitioner was dismissed or notified of dismissal. The application was dismissed with costs in the petition.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the petitioner's alleged summary dismissal dissipated the substratum of the conservatory orders of 27th March 2025

Holding

No - the application was overtaken by events because the court had earlier found no evidence that the petitioner was dismissed or notified of dismissal, so the orders could not be discharged on that basis

Reasoning

The applicant argued the dismissal made compliance with the reinstatement order impossible. The court noted that in a subsequent ruling (application dated 10th June 2025) it had found no evidence that the petitioner was dismissed or notified of dismissal. That finding undermined the factual premise of the application, and the reversal of the 27/3/25 order could not hold.

p. 4
02

Whether the applicant moved the court in good faith and timeously

Holding

The court did not make an express finding, but rejected the application as lacking merit

Reasoning

The applicant claimed it acted within reasonable time of learning of the ruling published in the Judiciary Portal, citing the Deputy Registrar's notice that Justice Wasilwa would be on leave. The petitioner countered that the application was reactionary, brought in bad faith and without clean hands since the dismissal was initiated while the petition was pending.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An interlocutory application may be dismissed where the issues raised have been overtaken by events and the orders sought can no longer be sustained

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 4th April 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application are awarded in the petition
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over a constitutional petition concerning employment rights (Articles 41, 47 and 50 invoked by the parties)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Shabdin v Registered Trustees of the Sisters of Mercy (Kenya) t/a Mater Misericordiae Hospital (Petition E006 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2922 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (interlocutory application within a constitutional petition; Notice of Motion dated 4th April 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2922/eng@2025-10-27

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