Beatrice Nelima Lukorito v Pauline Chemutai, Assistant County Commissioner Keiyo Division, County Commissioner Trans Nzoia County, Deputy County Commissioner Kwanza Sub-County & Attorney General
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to stop an assistant chief's appointment because she was already in office when the case was filed.
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 Applicant has satisfied the conditions for the grant of a temporary injunction
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant established a prima facie case with probability of success
No - the letter of 15th January 2025 and its legal effect are contested, and the evidence does not show a completed, legally effective appointment
The Applicant relied on a letter dated 15th January 2025 but conceded she was awaiting formal documentation. The 1st Respondent deponed that the initial recruitment was cancelled for irregularities and no appointment letter issued. Whether the letter constituted a formal appointment is a contested matter for the substantive hearing.
Whether the prayers were overtaken by events and mandatory in substance
Yes - the 1st Respondent was appointed with effect from 2nd April 2026, before the application filed on 23rd June 2026; restraining orders would dislodge her and be mandatory in substance
The appointment had already taken effect when the application was filed, so an order restraining installation would serve no practical purpose. Framed as prohibitory, the orders would in substance suspend or dislodge the appointee, altering rather than preserving the status quo, and mandatory interlocutory injunctions require clear and exceptional circumstances not demonstrated here.
Balance of convenience
Favours maintaining the prevailing position; suspending the 1st Respondent would disrupt public administrative functions and grant final relief
Since the appointment predated the application, the balance of convenience favours maintaining the status quo. Suspending the 1st Respondent would disrupt public administrative functions and amount to substantially final relief before full hearing.
Legal principles established
#- Interlocutory injunctions are governed by the Giella v Cassman Brown principles: prima facie case, irreparable injury, balance of convenience, applied as sequential hurdles
- Prohibitory orders that would dislodge a party already appointed are mandatory in substance and require clear and exceptional circumstances
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 23rd June 2026 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the substantive 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; Notice of Motion under sections 3 and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 rules 1-5 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining installation of the 1st Respondent as Assistant Chief Grade II, Kapkoi Location/Sub-Location
No prima facie case with probability of success; no irreparable injury demonstrated; prayers overtaken by events as appointment had already taken effect; orders would be mandatory in substance
Costs of the application
Costs deferred to the substantive suit
Costs
Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the substantive 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.
Accordingly, the Notice of Motion dated 23rd June 2026 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the substantive suit.
To the extent that the impugned appointment had already taken effect, the prayers sought have been overtaken by events.
A mandatory injunction at an interlocutory stage may only be granted in clear and exceptional circumstances.
At this interlocutory stage, the Court is not required to make a finding concerning the legality of either of the recruitment exercises.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Beatrice Nelima Lukorito v Pauline Chemutai, Assistant County Commissioner Keiyo Division, County Commissioner Trans Nzoia County, Deputy County Commissioner Kwanza Sub-County & Attorney General", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC NO. E011 OF 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2694/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.