The Court of Appeal has overturned a decision of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) that had barred Edelvale Trust Jamaa Home & Mission Hospital from terminating three of their hospital workers and ordered the institution to continue paying their salaries pending the hearing of their case.
In a judgment delivered on June 12, 2026, a three-judge bench comprising Justices K. M’Inoti, E.C. Mwita and B. Ongaya allowed an appeal by Edelvale Trust Jamaa Home & Mission Hospital, setting aside a 2018 ruling that had granted interim relief to former employees Sarah Nduta Thenya, Hellen Njeri Kangiri and Pamela Ndwiga.
The dispute arose in September 2017 after the three employees challenged what they described as an unlawfully prolonged suspension. They filed a case in the ELRC claiming the hospital had extended their suspension beyond the period permitted under its internal regulations and failed to communicate the outcome of disciplinary investigations. At the time, the workers obtained temporary court orders restraining the hospital from terminating their employment. The ELRC later confirmed those orders and directed the hospital to release withheld salaries and continue paying the employees until the case was determined.
However, the hospital appealed, arguing that the employees had already been terminated before the court orders were issued and that the trial court had improperly granted injunctions that effectively reinstated them before a full hearing of the dispute. The Court of Appeal agreed with the hospital, finding that the trial court failed to adequately consider whether the employees had exhausted internal dispute resolution mechanisms provided under their employment contract.
The judges noted that the hospital’s terms and conditions of employment contained a grievance procedure through which employees could raise concerns with supervisors and management before resorting to court action.
“Unless for good reason shown, such as impossibility to invoke and genuinely implement the provision, the court should have considered whether such provision ought to have been invoked as an appropriate arrangement between the parties,” the judges stated.
The appellate court also found that the employees had not sought permanent injunctive relief in their main claim, a requirement under the Employment and Labour Relations Court rules before temporary injunctions can be granted. According to the judges, the interim orders issued by the ELRC did not correspond with the substantive prayers sought in the main suit, making the injunctions procedurally defective.
The court further held that the dispute was fundamentally contractual and commercial in nature and that any losses suffered by the employees could be compensated through monetary damages if they ultimately succeeded at trial.
“In absence of an irreparable injury that cannot be adequately compensated by an award of damages, we find that the temporary injunctions or orders should not have been granted,” the judgment stated.
The judges emphasized that questions surrounding the legality of the suspension, the validity of the alleged termination letters, and whether the employees were properly notified of termination remained contested issues that could only be conclusively determined during a full hearing.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal set aside the ELRC ruling issued on February 5, 2018, dismissed the employees’ application for interim orders and directed that the costs of the application be determined in the main case.
