Owour v Kenya Revenue Authority & 4 others (Petition E232 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2442 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court in Kenya refused to temporarily reinstate a dismissed employee, confirming courts will not grant reinstatement pending a hearing except in very rare cases.
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 petitioner has made out a case for a temporary injunction suspending the implementation of the termination letter dated 3 July 2026
- 2.Whether the orders sought, being in substance an interim reinstatement, may issue pending the hearing of the petition
Key legal issues
#Whether the interim orders sought are in substance an order of reinstatement
Yes; staying, suspending or stopping implementation of the termination letter would return the petitioner to the shop floor, which is reinstatement pending hearing.
The court analysed the effect of the orders sought rather than their form. Since termination had already taken effect through the letter dated 3 July 2026, suspending that letter would effectively restore the petitioner to employment before a full hearing, thereby achieving reinstatement in disguise and circumventing Rule 53 of the Court Rules.
Whether reinstatement may be granted as an interim measure
No, save in rare and exceptional cases; this case does not qualify.
Rule 53 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules bars ex parte reinstatement orders. The underlying rationale is that reinstatement requires specific performance of a contract of service, a remedy granted only in very exceptional circumstances, following Co-operative Bank v BIFU, Kenya Power v Wasike and KRA v Gitahi. The petitioner's assertion of lost salary and medical cover did not elevate his case to that exceptional standard.
Whether the petition can address the matters sought in the interim
The petition replicates the same orders sought interlocutorily, so the court will dispose of the issues finally at the hearing.
The court noted that the orders sought in the interim application are also set out in the petition, meaning that hearing the petition on its merits will determine the matters with finality. This removed any justification for interim relief and supported dismissal of the application rather than a deferral.
Legal principles established
#- An order of reinstatement should not issue in the interim.
- There should be no order for specific performance of a contract of services except in very exceptional circumstances; reinstatement is not automatic.
- Before ordering reinstatement the court must set out the exceptional circumstances marking out the case.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 21 July 2026 is dismissed
- 2.Costs shall abide by the outcome of the petition
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 10, 27, 28, 41, 47, 50 and 73 of the Constitution; sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 40 Rules 1 and 2, Order 50 Rule 1; section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction suspending implementation of the termination letter dated 3 July 2026 and restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's employment
The termination has taken effect; the orders sought would amount to an interim reinstatement, which the Court Rules prohibit being granted ex parte/interim, and no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated
Costs
Costs shall abide by the outcome of 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.
To stay, suspend or stop the implementation of the letter dated 3 July 2026 would effectively return the petitioner to the shop floor. Such is an order of reinstatement pending the hearing of the petition.
The parameters for the granting of an order of reinstatement as an interim measure are very strict. It should only be issued in rare cases. This does not stand out as one such case.
Accordingly, the application dated 21 July 2026 is without merit and is hereby dismissed. Costs shall abide by the outcome of the petition.
Issues in the judgment
#The respondents' replying affidavit refers to the termination letter as dated 3 July 2023 in one passage while the petition and the rest of the judgment date it 3 July 2026.
The respondents' affidavit is reported as referring to 'EAC' rather than EACC when describing the arrest of the petitioner.
The application is described as filed by 'the petitioner' while the deposition also refers to 'the claimant's employment' in the prayer, suggesting inconsistent party labels.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Owour v Kenya Revenue Authority & 4 others (Petition E232 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2442 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Petition No. E232 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2442/eng@2026-08-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.