Automated Summary
Key Facts
The claimant, Isaac Kaaria Inoti, was employed as Deputy Principal (Administration, Finance & Planning) by Meru University College of Science and Technology (MUCST) in 2010 under a 5-year contract. After MUCST's transition to a full university in 2013, the claimant was appointed as Acting Deputy Vice Chancellor in the same department. He alleges constructive dismissal by the university through actions in late 2014, including interference with his duties and initiation of termination processes. The university contends his original role became redundant post-accreditation, and he voluntarily cleared his position and requested final dues. The court dismissed the injunction application but acknowledged the claimant’s prima facie case regarding contract validity and potential unlawful termination.
Issues
- The court must determine if the claimant's employment contract, which began in 2011 as Deputy Principal, was terminated by the university's transition to a full-fledged university in 2013. The claimant argues that his contract remained valid, while the respondent contends that the role became redundant post-accreditation.
- The court is also tasked with assessing whether the claimant's acting appointment as Deputy Vice Chancellor in 2013, and his subsequent unsuccessful application for the substantive position, led to a constructive dismissal or breach of his original contract terms. The claimant did not consent to the variation of his contract beyond the commencement date and the acting role.
Holdings
The court dismissed the application for an interlocutory injunction, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a proper case under the Giella test. The Court concluded that the respondent’s actions did not warrant injunctive relief and that damages would be adequate compensation if the claimant succeeded at the full trial.
Remedies
The Court dismissed the claimant's application for an interlocutory injunction, ruling that the applicant failed to establish a proper case for such relief. The application was denied with costs awarded to the respondents.
Legal Principles
The court applied the principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunctions as set out in Giella v. Cassman Brown and the American Cynamid case, assessing whether the applicant had made out a prima facie case with probability of success and whether damages would be inadequate if the injunction were denied.
Precedent Name
- American Cynamid case
- Giella v. Cassman Brown
Cited Statute
- Employment Act
- Universities Act, 2012
Judge Name
Abuodha J. N.
Passage Text
- Taking into account the principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunctions as set out in Giella v. Cassman Brown case and elaborated in the American Cynamid case, the Court is not persuaded that this is a proper case for the grant of interlocutory injunction and hereby dismisses the application with costs.
- The respondent on its part has argued that upon its elevation to a fully-fledged University, the post of Deputy Principal Administration Finance and Planning which was held by the claimant ceased to exist and it is the reason for which he was appointed as acting Deputy Vice Chancellor Finance and Administration of the 1st respondent, a post he unsuccessfully applied for.
- Employment contracts are contracts like any other and are terminable either by breach or in accordance with stipulations contained in the contract itself. Further considering the personal aspects of contract of service, it would be uncomfortable to keep two unwilling parties in such a relationship especially where the minimum necessary confidence has ceased to exist.