Conrad Law Advocates LLP & another v Jinnah; Jinnah & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Cause E 942 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 373 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court froze a former law firm employee's assets, ruling he must secure Ksh. 113 million or the freeze stays until the case ends.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Status of the Respondent - employee, consultant or founding partner
On a prima facie basis, the Respondent was an employee of the 1st Claimant as office manager and head of business development, not a founding partner or consultant.
The Partnership Deed named only the two partners; a non-advocate cannot be a partner in a law firm under Rule 4 of the Advocates (Practice) Rules and section 37 of the Advocates Act. Particulars lodged with the Registrar of Partnerships describe the Respondent as manager, not consultant. His self-description in emails as 'Director-Business Development' supports employment. The manager of an LLP need not be a partner and may be a mere employee.
Whether the Claimants established a prima facie case for an interim injunction
Yes - the first two Giella conditions were satisfied and the balance of convenience favoured preservation of the disputed assets.
Bank slips and statements showed the Respondent withdrew money from the 1st Claimant's accounts; email and WhatsApp correspondence showed client funds in his custody being demanded back, and the matter had attracted the Law Society of Kenya. The colossal sum (Ksh. 113,655,831.00) and risk of disciplinary action meant damages would not be an adequate remedy; third-party client funds were at risk of total loss.
Whether orders for attachment before judgment / security should issue
Yes - the Respondent left the jurisdiction to avoid the impending judicial process and transferred vehicles to the Interested Parties after the dispute began, affording reasonable probability of obstruction of any decree.
The Respondent's email of 23rd May 2024 showed he knew charges of theft by servant were being preferred, and he left the country the day after the police report. Vehicle ownership histories showed transfers to the 2nd and 3rd Interested Parties in May 2024. These facts justified requiring him to furnish security for the anticipated decree.
Jurisdiction of the ELRC and exhaustion of alternative remedies
The court has jurisdiction; the exhaustion argument was not pleaded and cannot be raised through submissions alone, and the criminal complaint does not oust civil jurisdiction.
The exhaustion objection was not raised in any pleading, and permitting it via submissions would unfairly deny the opponent a chance to rebut. Criminal and civil processes are distinct. The dispute being founded on an apparent employment relation, the ELRC is the competent forum, at least on a preliminary view before any Statement of Defence is filed.
Legal principles established
#- An advocate may not enter into partnership with, or share profits of legal practice with, a non-advocate; any such arrangement is illegal and unenforceable.
- A contract of service may be oral or written; absence of a written contract does not negate an employment relationship.
- A company director is not by virtue of directorship an employee of the company, and nothing prevents a director of one entity from being employed by another entity.
- Reporting a matter to the police does not bar a claimant from simultaneously pursuing a civil remedy over the same matter.
Court orders
#- 1.Interim injunction restraining the Respondent and/or the Interested Parties and/or their agents from selling, leasing, charging, disposing of, transferring or interfering with motor vehicles KDM 356E, KBQ 513U, KCT 555V
- 2.Interim injunction restraining transfer, disposal or interference with motor vehicles KCX 555K, KDH 252H and KBV 919X, transferred to the 2nd and 3rd Interested Parties in May 2024
- 3.Interim injunction restraining the Respondent, the Interested Parties and their agents from transferring, selling, charging or in any way interfering with immovable property Kiambu/Municipality Block 6/233
- 4.Interim injunction barring the Respondent and/or the Interested Parties and/or their agents from transferring, pledging, assigning, securitising or interfering with the funds in the Respondent's Stanbic, DTB and ABSA bank accounts
- 5.Order directing the Respondent to provide security for the anticipated decree of Ksh. 113,655,831.00 by way of a suitable bank guarantee or deposit in court within 30 days
- 6.Order that if the Respondent provides the security, the interim injunction orders shall be lifted forthwith; if he does not, the injunctive orders shall crystallise and the affected properties deemed attached and preserved, with possession to be delivered to the court grounds, Milimani Law Courts
- 7.Order that motor vehicle KBN 900F, motor vehicle KCW 888G, the Nationwide Building Society account No. 14055174 of the 1st Interested Party, and motor vehicle KBT 854X are not affected by the orders
- 8.Costs of the application to abide the results of the case
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction founded on an apparent employment relation between the Respondent and the 1st Claimant
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Conrad Law Advocates LLP & another v Jinnah; Jinnah & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Cause E 942 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 373 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/373/eng@2025-02-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.