[2021] KEELRC 415 (KLR)

[2021] KEELRC 415 (KLR)

The court found that the Claimants failed to justify the need for a general gag order against the Respondent, as required under Article 33 of the Constitution and established case law. The pleadings indicated that the dispute extended beyond employment to issues of shareholding and directorship, which are best...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELRC 415 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Alpha Vision Multimedia Limited; Applicant: Alpha Vision Kenya Limited; Applicant: Radiotelle Limited; Respondent: Sintoyia Cindy Kasaine
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause E463 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Interim Injunctions
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
L Ndolo
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Termination of Employment, Shareholder Rights, Directorship Disputes
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Commercial and Corporate Injunctive Relief Termination of Employment Shareholder Rights Directorship Disputes

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alpha Vision Multimedia Limited

Applicant

Alpha Vision Kenya Limited

Applicant

Radiotelle Limited

Applicant

Sintoyia Cindy Kasaine

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Interim Injunctions

  1. 1 Whether the Claimants are entitled to a permanent or interim injunction restraining the Respondent from disclosing information or making defamatory statements against them.
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent should be compelled to relinquish company property at the interlocutory stage.
  3. 3 Whether the circumstances justify a limitation of the Respondent's freedom of expression under Article 33 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimants failed to justify the need for a general gag order against the Respondent, as required under Article 33 of the Constitution and established case law. The pleadings indicated that the dispute extended beyond employment to issues of shareholding and directorship, which are best determined at full trial. The court also held that the circumstances did not warrant the grant of a mandatory injunction compelling the Respondent to relinquish company property at the interlocutory stage. Consequently, the application for interim injunctive relief was dismissed, and the interim orders previously granted were vacated.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Claimants’ Notice of Motion dated 9th June 2021 is dismissed with costs in the cause.
  • The interim orders granted on 10th June 2021 are vacated.