SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Kandie & 2 others v Communications Authority of Kenya (Cause 128 of 2015) [2015] KEELRC 64 (KLR) (17 December 2015) (Ruling)

[2015] KEELRC 64 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
64
Citation
[2015] KEELRC 64 (KLR)
Decided
17 December 2015
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeLabor DisputePostureInter Partes HearingCoramHS WASILWA, OjwangAg., Rika
Holding

The Court allows the application and grants the orders sought by the Applicants.

Facts

The Respondent, Communications Authority of Kenya, declared redundant all employees in Director or Assistant Director positions. The Respondent then advertised the renamed positions, which the Applicants contested.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent's process of restructuring the organization was above board.
  2. Whether the Applicants would be aected by the restructuring process.

Reasoning

The Court finds that it would be less risky to grant the orders sought than not, as the Respondents still have an opportunity to proceed with the restructuring process.

Outcome

The application is allowed.

Orders

  • Certify the application urgent and hear it ex-parte.
  • Restrain the Respondent from advertising, renaming, or taking steps to recruit employees in certain positions.
  • Publish advertisements in national circulation to suspend the advertised positions.
  • Restrain the Respondent from taking steps to terminate employment or interfere with the position and rank of the Applicants.
  • Publish advertisements to suspend the Respondent's previous advertisements of the renamed positions.

Remedies

  • Irreparable loss to the Applicants if the orders are denied.
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case