[2016] KEELRC 121 (KLR)

[2016] KEELRC 121 (KLR)

The court found that the Claimant had established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction and an order of attachment. The Respondent's failure to enter appearance, the dishonoured cheque, and evidence that the directors had left the country and were disposing of assets indicated a real risk that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELRC 121 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Tirulpathi Nand Gopal; Respondent: Hydel Engineering and Construction Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1350 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Interlocutory Application for Injunction and Attachment
Outcome
Application allowed; temporary injunction and order of attachment granted.
Judges
L Ndolo
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Attachment of Property, Employee Remuneration Claim, Ex Parte Orders
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Injunctive Relief Attachment of Property Employee Remuneration Claim Ex Parte Orders

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tirulpathi Nand Gopal

Applicant

Hydel Engineering and Construction Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Interlocutory Application for Injunction and Attachment

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the Respondent from disposing of specified assets pending determination of the claim.
  2. 2 Whether an order of attachment should issue against the Respondent's motor vehicle to secure the Claimant's claim.
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent's conduct justifies the grant of protective orders to prevent frustration of the court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimant had established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction and an order of attachment. The Respondent's failure to enter appearance, the dishonoured cheque, and evidence that the directors had left the country and were disposing of assets indicated a real risk that the Claimant's claim would be defeated unless the assets were preserved. The court invoked Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Rules to restrain the Respondent from disposing of the identified property and motor vehicle and ordered attachment of the vehicle, pending further orders. The orders were necessary to prevent the frustration of the court process and to secure the Claimant's...

Court Disposition

Application allowed; temporary injunction and order of attachment granted.

Orders

  • The Respondent is restrained from disposing by way of sale or otherwise dealing with its interest in L.R. No 1870/VI/94 pending further orders of the Court.
  • The Respondent is restrained from disposing by way of sale or otherwise dealing with Motor Vehicle Registration No. KBM 546H pending further orders of the Court.