Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment text· [2016] KEELRC 1280 (KLR)

Evans Kamanda Kivochi v Eldoret Mattresses Ltd [2016] KEELRC 1280 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
3 May 2016
RSRadido Stephen
624 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

An employee's bid to freeze Kshs 3.5 million and arrest a company director failed because he offered no evidence backing his claims.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, in a cause against Eldoret Mattresses Ltd pending before the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru, filed a summons application on 13 February 2016 seeking a warrant of arrest against Milan Karniya Shah, said to be a Director of the Respondent, to show cause why he should not furnish security for his appearance, and an order that the Respondent deposit Kshs 3,521,650/= or another sufficient sum as security to answer the claim. The Claimant argued that the Respondent was winding up its Kenyan operations and that a director was about to leave the jurisdiction, rendering any judgment nugatory. The Respondent filed grounds of opposition, describing the application as frivolous, vexatious and incurably defective. The court agreed, finding the application frivolous, vexatious and scandalous. First, the Memorandum of Claim named only one Respondent, Eldoret Mattresses Ltd; the application impermissibly sought to introduce Daniel Ngugi t/a Kamtinga Services as a second Respondent who was not a party. Second, no evidence showed the Respondent intended to wind up activities in Kenya. Third, no evidence established that Milan Karniya Shah or Daniel Ngugi were directors; a Companies Registry search would have sufficed. Fourth, the Claimant did not set out the applicable legal principles or demonstrate a prima facie case. The court admonished advocates to be faithful to professionalism and diligence, dismissed the application, and ordered the Claimant to pay the Respondent Kshs 15,000/- as costs within 30 days. Judgment delivered at Nakuru on 3 May 2016 by Radido Stephen, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Claimant made out a case for security for appearance and for deposit of security

Holding

The application was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious and scandalous

Reasoning

The Claimant sought to introduce a second Respondent, Daniel Ngugi t/a Kamtinga Services, who was not a party to the Memorandum of Claim. No evidence showed the Respondent was winding up operations in Kenya, nor that Milan Karniya Shah or Daniel Ngugi were directors of the Respondent; a Companies Registry search would have sufficed. The Claimant also failed to set out the applicable legal principles or demonstrate a prima facie case.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A party seeking security for appearance or costs must adduce evidence, such as a Companies Registry search, to establish the directorship and intentions alleged
  • Courts do not act on unsupported allegations

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the Claimant's application
  2. 2.The Claimant to pay the Respondent Kshs 15,000/- as costs within 30 days
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court, cause pending before it (Memorandum of Claim filed 14 October 2014)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Evans Kamanda Kivochi v Eldoret Mattresses Ltd [2016] KEELRC 1280 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Not stated in the judgment text. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1280/eng@2016-05-03

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