Family Bank Limited v Njue; Kenya Commercial Bank & another (Interested Parties) (Cause E889 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2049 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court dismissed a contempt application for sloppy drafting but still ordered Ksh. 2.25 million transferred in breach of a freeze order to be reversed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Correctness of the date and scope of the orders relied on
The orders affecting the Stanbic Bank account were issued on 30th January 2025, not 29th January 2025, rendering the application defective; the 8th July 2024 order did not affect that account and was irrelevant
The court examined its own record and found the freeze orders were issued on 30th January 2025. The application was premised on orders of 29th January 2025, so it was defective insofar as it purported to found contempt on those orders. The 8th July 2024 order did not concern the impugned account at all.
Obligation to state the legal basis of an application
The application did not cite any provisions of law under which it was brought, undermining invocation of the court's jurisdiction
The court held that a party moving the court must state the law under which the request is made to demonstrate that jurisdiction has been properly invoked, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Njihia v Kimani. An application presented without identifying its legal foundation is liable to be struck out.
Joinder of Interested Parties without leave
The 1st and 2nd Interested Parties were never made parties to the suit; impleading them in the application without a formal joinder application was improper
Order 1 rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules governs addition and substitution of parties and does not permit introducing new parties through a mere application unless done by the court on its own motion. The Respondent could not thereby found contempt proceedings against entities not properly before the court.
Preservation of funds transferred in breach of a freeze order
The court, on its own motion, directed reversal of the Ksh. 2,250,000 transfer to protect the integrity of the judicial process, without impleading the banks
Although the application failed, the court noted that a freeze order was already in place when the transfer was effected. Invoking its inherent and statutory preservation powers, it directed reversal of the funds, but clarified that this did not amount to impleading the banks, who remain non-parties until properly joined.
Legal principles established
#- A court application must cite the provisions of law under which it is brought; failure to identify the proper legal framework renders the application liable to be struck out
- Interested Parties cannot be introduced to a suit through an interlocutory application without a formal application for joinder; Order 1 rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not contemplate it except where done by the court on its own motion
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 4th February 2025 fails and is dismissed
- 2.On the court's own motion, invoking section 12(3)(viii) of the ELRC Act as read with sections 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act, KCB Bank Limited is directed to reverse the transfer of Ksh. 2,250,000 from account number 13xxxxxx85 back to account number 010xxxxxx948 at Stanbic Bank Limited
- 3.If the funds had been paid out to the Claimant, the Claimant is ordered to reverse the payment back to KCB Bank Limited within three working days of the order
- 4.KCB Bank Limited is directed to transmit the funds to account number 010xxxxxx948 at Stanbic Bank Limited within three working days of receipt from the Claimant
- 5.The directions do not amount to impleading Stanbic Bank Limited and KCB Bank Limited as parties; they remain non-parties until properly impleaded
- 6.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12(3)(viii) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act as read with sections 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Family Bank Limited v Njue; Kenya Commercial Bank & another (Interested Parties) (Cause E889 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2049 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). not stated in the excerpt provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2049/eng@2025-07-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.