Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutNot stated in judgment (application dated 14th May 2025; related suit ELRC No. E70 OF 2024)· [2025] KEELC 8559 (KLR)

Osuku v Coastal Kenya Enterprises Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E143 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8559 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
9 December 2025
1,007 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court struck out a worker's bid to freeze his ex-employer's property because he never proved the employer actually owned it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, a former accountant employed by the Respondent from 30th November 2009 to March 2022, resigned over delayed salary payments and sued the Respondent in ELRC No. E70 OF 2024 for salary arrears and terminal dues. Learning during that suit that the Respondent's business premises on Plot No. 12458/6, Enterprise Road, was on sale, and apprehending that the Respondent had already disposed of its machinery, he filed a Notice of Motion dated 14th May 2025 seeking an inhibition order registered against the title and maintenance of status quo so that any judgment in his favour would not be rendered nugatory. The application was unopposed, but the Applicant filed written submissions invoking Giella v Cassman Brown and Section 68 of the Land Registration Act, relying also on Shivabhai Patel v Manibhai Patel and Dorcas Muthoni v Michael Ireri Ngari. The court framed a single issue: whether an inhibition order should issue restraining disposal of the plot pending the ELRC claim. Applying Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Steyn v Gnecchi-Ruscone, Justice Christine Ochieng found that the Applicant had not annexed an official search or copy of title proving the Respondent's ownership of the plot, and that unopposed status did not relieve him of the evidential burden. Nor had he proved a threatened or intended disposal to obstruct execution of any decree. The court found the application premature and struck it out on 9th December 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicant met the threshold for an inhibition order / temporary injunction under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Holding

The application was premature and was struck out because the Applicant failed to prove ownership of the suit property by the Respondent and failed to prove an intention to dispose of it to defeat execution

Reasoning

The court examined the supporting affidavit annexures and found no official search or copy of title proving that the Respondent owned Plot No. 12458/6. Although the application was unopposed, the evidential burden remained on the Applicant. Further, the requirements of Order 40 on threatened or intended disposal of property were not proved. In the circumstances the motion was struck out as premature.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An unopposed application must still be established on the evidence; the burden remains on the Applicant to prove ownership of the property against which an inhibition is sought
  • Order 40 temporary injunction relief requires proof that the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of property to obstruct or delay execution of a decree

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 14th May 2025 is struck out as premature
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent interlocutory jurisdiction under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 68 of the Land Registration Act invoked by the Applicant for inhibition orders

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Osuku v Coastal Kenya Enterprises Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E143 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8559 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (application dated 14th May 2025; related suit ELRC No. E70 OF 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8559/eng@2025-12-09

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.