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 as provided· [2024] KEELRC 2419 (KLR)

Rai & another v Heritage Flowers Limited & another (Cause E992 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2419 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
3 October 2024
LNLinnet Ndolo
997 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

#

Kenya's Employment Court refused to force a director to sign salary cheques mid-case, holding such mandatory orders require special circumstances that weren't shown.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is an interlocutory ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi, delivered virtually on 3rd October 2024 by Linnet Ndolo, Judge. The 1st and 2nd Claimants, by Notice of Motion dated 1st December 2023, sought orders compelling the 2nd Respondent, Punjani Riyaz Mahammadali, to sign cheques in respect of their salaries under employment contracts dated 1st April 2019 and 1st November 2023, and substituting him as signatory to the 1st Respondent's bank accounts. The application was supported by an affidavit of the 1st Claimant, who alleged that the 2nd Respondent had unlawfully refused to sign cheques, in breach of the employment contracts. The 2nd Respondent opposed the application through a replying affidavit, describing himself as majority shareholder and alleging fraud and non-disclosure of a pending High Court shareholder dispute (HCOMM E894 of 2021), challenging the authenticity and Board authorisation of the employment contracts and other appointments. The court, applying the principles on interlocutory mandatory injunctions from Nation Media Group v Mwau and Locabail International Finance Ltd v Agroexport, held that the controversies - including the shareholders' dispute and the veracity of the employment contracts - could not be determined at the interlocutory stage, and that granting the orders would amount to determining the entire claim without viva voce evidence. No special circumstances having been demonstrated, the application was declined with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an interlocutory mandatory injunction should issue compelling the 2nd Respondent to sign salary cheques

Holding

The application was declined; no special circumstances were demonstrated and the orders would determine the entire claim at the interlocutory stage.

Reasoning

The court held that the issues in controversy, including the intertwining with a pending High Court shareholders' dispute and the veracity of the employment contracts, could not be resolved on the papers. Granting the orders would amount to determining the whole claim without hearing the parties viva voce, and the Claimants failed to demonstrate the special circumstances required for a mandatory interlocutory injunction.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Mandatory injunctions at the interlocutory stage require special circumstances and a higher degree of assurance than prohibitory injunctions

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claimants' Notice of Motion dated 1st December 2023 is declined with costs in the cause
Jurisdiction invoked
Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rai & another v Heritage Flowers Limited & another (Cause E992 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2419 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2419/eng@2024-10-03

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