[2012] KEHC 5548 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 5548 (KLR)

The court found that while the Defendant’s contract contained a restraint of trade clause and confidentiality provisions, the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the Defendant’s duties involved access to confidential information as defined in the contract. The Plaintiff’s fears of misuse of confidential information were speculative and unsupported by particulars of breach. The restraint of trade clause, though not unlawful per se, was unreasonable in the circumstances, as the Defendant had already been employed by a competitor for seven months, and enforcing the clause would only bar him from employment for five more months without any guarantee of re-employment. The court held that...

Citation
[2012] KEHC 5548 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: LG Electronics Africa Logistics FZE; Respondent: Charles Kimari
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
11 October 2012
Case Number
Civil Suit 346 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Confidential Information, Employment Contracts, Injunctive Relief
Source Language
English
Employment and Labour Commercial and Corporate Restraint of Trade Confidential Information Employment Contracts Injunctive Relief

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LG Electronics Africa Logistics FZE

Applicant

Charles Kimari

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restraint of trade clause in the employment contract is legal and enforceable under Kenyan law.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's employment with a competitor constitutes a breach of confidentiality or misuse of confidential information.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief restraining the Defendant from working for a competitor.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the Defendant’s contract contained a restraint of trade clause and confidentiality provisions, the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the Defendant’s duties involved access to confidential information as defined in the contract. The Plaintiff’s fears of misuse of confidential information were speculative and unsupported by particulars of breach. The restraint of trade clause, though not unlawful per se, was unreasonable in the circumstances, as the Defendant had already been employed by a competitor for seven months, and enforcing the clause would only bar him from employment for five more months without any guarantee of re-employment. The court held that...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion application dated 30th May 2012 is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the Respondent.