[2016] KEELRC 63 (KLR)
The court found that the Claimants' factual assertions regarding their termination and the risk of the Respondent absconding with assets were unchallenged, as the Respondent had been served but failed to respond or appear. Given the risk that the Respondent might dispose of the motor vehicles and thereby frustrate...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELRC 63 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Paul Ocheso Otengo; Applicant: Hezron Mmbango Khakali; Applicant: Morris Lugando Kanili; Applicant: David Mahero Mukaisi; Applicant: David Ateka Gardi; Applicant: Robert Kipyegon Bett; Applicant: Kevin Odhiambo Ochieng; Applicant: Nicholas Kipkoech Bett; Applicant: Stanley Wanyoike Kamau; Applicant: Fredrick O. Waluanga; Respondent: Girish Kumar Patel t/a Tej Dip Hardware Stores
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 452 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Interlocutory Application for Injunction
- Outcome
- Interlocutory injunction granted as prayed in orders 2 and 3 of the motion.
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Unlawful Termination, Injunctive Relief, Terminal Dues, Employee Protection
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Paul Ocheso Otengo
Applicant
Hezron Mmbango Khakali
Applicant
Morris Lugando Kanili
Applicant
David Mahero Mukaisi
Applicant
David Ateka Gardi
Applicant
Robert Kipyegon Bett
Applicant
Kevin Odhiambo Ochieng
Applicant
Nicholas Kipkoech Bett
Applicant
Stanley Wanyoike Kamau
Applicant
Fredrick O. Waluanga
Applicant
Girish Kumar Patel t/a Tej Dip Hardware Stores
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Interlocutory Application for Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Claimants are entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the Respondent from disposing of or interfering with specified motor vehicles and their log books pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the Claimants have demonstrated a prima facie case for the grant of interlocutory injunctive relief to secure their terminal dues.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Claimants' factual assertions regarding their termination and the risk of the Respondent absconding with assets were unchallenged, as the Respondent had been served but failed to respond or appear. Given the risk that the Respondent might dispose of the motor vehicles and thereby frustrate any eventual judgment regarding terminal dues, the court determined that the Claimants had established a prima facie case for the grant of interlocutory injunctive relief. The court therefore granted the orders restraining the Respondent from disposing of or interfering with the specified motor vehicles and their log books pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
Court Disposition
Interlocutory injunction granted as prayed in orders 2 and 3 of the motion.
Orders
- A temporary order of injunction is issued restraining the Respondent, his employees, servants and/or agents from disposing of or in any other manner dealing or interfering with motor vehicle registration numbers KCC 272Y, KCC 272G, KBZ 272X and KBT 272L and their log books pending the hearing and determination of...
- An order of injunction is issued restraining the Respondent, his employees, servants and/or agents from disposing of or in any other manner dealing or interfering with the above motor vehicles and their log books pending the hearing and final determination of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT
NAKURU CAUSE NO. 452 OF 2016
PAUL OCHESO OTENGO...........................................1STCLAIMANT
HEZRON MMBANGO KHAKALI ...............................2NDCLAIMANT
MORRIS LUGANDO KANILI .....................................3RDCLAIMANT
DAVID MAHERO MUKAISI.......................................4THCLAIMANT
DAVID ATEKA GARDI ...............................................5THCLAIMANT
ROBERT KIPYEGON BETT ......................................6THCLAIMANT
KEVIN ODHIAMBO OCHIENG .................................7THCLAIMANT
NICHOLAS KIPKOECH BETT ...................................8THCLAIMANT
STANLEY WANYOIKE KAMAU ..................................9THCLAIMANT
FREDRICK O. WALUANGA.....................................10THCLAIMANT
v
GIRISH KUMAR PATELt/a
TEJ DIP HARDWARE STORES.....................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The 10 Claimants moved Court through a motion under certificate of urgency on 9 November 2016 seeking
1….
2. That pending the hearing and determination of this application inter-partes, this Honourable court bepleased to issue a temporary order for injunction restraining the Respondent, his employees, servants and or agents from deposing of or in any other manner dealing or interfering with motor vehicle registration numbers;KCC 272Y, KCC 272G, KBZ 272X and KBT 272Landtheir log books.
3. That pending the hearing and final determination of this suit, this honourable court be pleased to issue an order for injunction restraining the Respondent, his employees, servants and or agents from disposing of or in any other manner dealing or interfering with the above motor vehicles and their log books.
4. …..
2. The Court directed that the motion be served and scheduled a return date of 15 November 2016 for directions.
3. When the motion was called out on 15 November 2016, Mr. Opar appeared for the Claimants. The Respondent was not present or represented.
4. On record was an affidavit of service sworn by one Kennedy Wasonga attesting to service and acknowledgment by the Respondent and therefore the Court allowed the motion to proceed.
5. The Claimants allege that the Respondent verbally terminated their employment on 30 September 2016 and that the Respondent indicated he was leaving the jurisdiction of the Court. They fear the Respondent may not pay their terminal dues.
6. Because the facts as presented by the Claimants have not been challenged or controverted at this stage, the Respondent having been put on notice of the application, the Court will grant proposed orders 2 and 3 in the motion.
7. Costs in the cause.
Delivered, dated and signed in Nakuru on this 21stday of November 2016.
Radido Stephen
Judge
Appearances
For Claimants
Mr. Opar instructed by M.Korongo & Co. Advocates
For Respondents did not participate
Court Assistant Nixon