Chikwanha v Alp Management Kenya Limited & another (Cause E866 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 372 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court refused to freeze assets of companies not named in the lawsuit, saying a suspicion that an employer might sell property isn't enough without proof.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Prima facie case for interim injunction
The court could not determine at the interlocutory stage whether the Claimant had a prima facie case since both parties presented material supporting their contrasting positions
The dispute involved contested questions of pre-contractual representations about equity payments and the validity of the redundancy under section 40 of the Employment Act, which could only be resolved at full trial. With the prima facie case undetermined, the court resorted to the balance of convenience.
Orders against non-party companies
Interim orders cannot issue against companies which are not parties to the suit, as they are entitled to be heard before adverse orders are made against them
The properties the Claimant sought to freeze were held by ALP Limited and related companies which were not joined to the suit. Subsidiaries are distinct legal entities with no obligation to carry the Respondents' liabilities, and natural justice requires they be heard before adverse orders issue.
Security for performance of an anticipated decree
The power to order attachment before judgment must be exercised in the clearest of cases with cogent evidence of intent to defeat a decree
The 1st Respondent is a real estate company whose ordinary business is acquiring and disposing of property for profit. The COMESA approval relied on predated the termination of the Claimant's contract and could not show divestment to defeat a future claim.
Validity of the replying affidavit
The affidavit sworn by the 1st Respondent's CEO was admissible despite failure to state on whose behalf he swore it
The deponent was a witness, not a party, so Order 1 rule 13 on authority of co-litigants did not apply. Under Order 19 rule 3(1) he deponed to matters within his knowledge in his capacity as CEO, and courts may ignore such irregularities under Order 18 rule 7.
Legal principles established
#- Assets of a subsidiary company belong to a distinct legal entity which does not carry the parent's liabilities
- Mere disposal of assets in the ordinary course of business is not evidence of intent to defeat a decree
- A court may admit an affidavit despite procedural defects, absent scandalous, irrelevant or oppressive content and prejudice
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the Claimant's application dated 4th October 2024
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chikwanha v Alp Management Kenya Limited & another (Cause E866 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 372 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E866 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/372/eng@2025-02-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.