Omiyah v Kenya Electricity Generating Company PLC (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E1161 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3714 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan public servant with a disability was not allowed to retire at 65 because he registered as a disabled person less than three years before retirement.
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 demonstrated a prima facie case with probability of success entitling him to an interim injunction restraining retirement at 60 years
- 2.Whether failure to grant the injunction would occasion the Claimant irreparable harm not compensable by damages
- 3.Where the balance of convenience lies
Key legal issues
#Prima facie case for interim injunction based on extended retirement age for persons with disabilities
No prima facie case established because the Claimant was registered only about one year before retirement, short of the three-year database registration requirement under Regulation 70(2)(b)
Regulation 70(2)(b) of the Public Service Commission Regulations, 2020 requires registration in the public body's HR database at least three years before retirement. The Claimant's registration by the National Council for Persons with Disabilities occurred in January 2025, approximately one year before the retirement date of 31st December 2025. Precedent confirms non-compliance forfeits the entitlement to retire at 65.
Irreparable harm
Not demonstrated; the loss is quantifiable as five years' emoluments and reinstatement or re-engagement is available
The affidavit did not address irreparable harm. In any event, the loss is the equivalent of emoluments for the extended five-year period, which is quantifiable and compensable by damages, following Oyaro v KENGEN. The availability of reinstatement or re-engagement if the suit succeeds further negates irreparable injury.
Balance of convenience
Tilts against granting the injunction
Since no material demonstrated compliance with Regulation 70(2)(b), granting the injunction would compel the Respondent to retain the Claimant on its payroll when, prima facie, this may contravene prevailing law.
Legal principles established
#- Entitlement to retire at 65 as a person with disability requires registration in the public body's human resource database at least three years before the date of retirement
- Giella v Cassman Brown conditions govern interim injunctions: prima facie case, irreparable harm, balance of convenience
Court orders
#- 1.The court declines to issue the orders of interim injunction prayed for in the application dated 24th November 2025
- 2.The case to be heard on a priority basis in view of the Claimant's disability
- 3.Costs of the application to abide the results of the case
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; interim relief sought under the application dated 24th November 2025
Relief refused
#Interim injunction restraining the Respondent from stopping the Claimant from performing his duties pending hearing
No prima facie case; registration in the Respondent's database less than three years before retirement; loss quantifiable; balance of convenience against granting
Costs
Costs of the application will abide the results of the case.
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 upshot is that the court declines to issue the orders of interim injunction prayed for in the application dated 24th November 2025.
However, in view of the Claimant’s disability, the court grants his request for the case to be heard on priority basis.
Costs of the application will abide the results of the case.
In efiect, the fact of disability is not the sole determinant for one to benefit from the retirement age of sixty five (65) years.
Issues in the judgment
#Numerous typographical errors in the judgment text (e.g. 'efiect', 'sufier', 'foretasted', 'afidavit')
Judgment refers to the Persons with Disabilities Act No.4 of 2025 as already operative while describing events in 2024-2025; the statute relied on is a 2025 Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Omiyah v Kenya Electricity Generating Company PLC (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E1161 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3714 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3714/eng@2025-12-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.