Mbogo v Amitruck Limited (Cause E600 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2712 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court confirmed it can freeze assets in employment disputes, but only ordered the employer to deposit the admitted Kshs 176,269.70 owed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the ELRC to grant Mareva-type interim relief
The Court has jurisdiction; Section 12(3) of the ELRC Act empowers it to grant interim preservation orders including injunctions where the dispute arises out of employment or labour relations.
The Respondent argued Mareva injunctions fall outside Section 12(3) of the ELRC Act and are traditionally High Court remedies under Order 39 Rules 5 and 6 CPR, relying on Chovondo v Ultimate Engineering Ltd. The court rejected this, holding Section 12(3) does not limit the form of injunctive relief; the operative question is whether the dispute arises from employment relations, which this termination-benefits dispute plainly does.
Whether the threshold for a Mareva injunction was met
No. The application was overly broad, identified no specific assets or bank accounts, and lacked evidence of a real risk of dissipation.
Order 39 Rule 5(2) requires an applicant to specify the property to be attached and its estimated value because freezing orders operate harshly on respondents. The claimant sought a blanket freezing order against any assets or monies in NCBA, KCB or any bank, without affidavit evidence showing monies held in the named banks or particular assets susceptible to attachment; averments on removal of assets were general and speculative.
Whether protective security by way of deposit should issue under Rule 68(3) ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024
Yes, but limited to Kshs. 176,269.70, the admitted balance of redundancy pay, to be deposited in a joint interest-earning account within 30 days.
The Respondent filed only Grounds of Opposition raising legal objections without rebutting the claimant's factual assertions. The demand letter from the Respondent's advocate admitted owing Kshs. 176,269.00; other employees were paid except the claimant, and the Respondent was allegedly winding up local operations. Together these showed sufficient cause for protective relief, though not for the larger sum of Kshs. 4,226,269.70 claimed.
Legal principles established
#- Section 12(3) of the ELRC Act empowers the ELRC to grant interim preservation orders including Mareva-type injunctions where the dispute arises out of employment or labour relations; the form of injunctive relief is not limited
- An applicant for a Mareva/freezing injunction must specify the property to be attached, give an estimated value, and provide particularised evidence of assets and a real risk of dissipation
- Where satisfaction of relief in a pending suit may be defeated or frustrated, the ELRC may order deposit of security under Rule 68(3) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent is directed to deposit the sum of Kshs. 176,269.70 into a joint interest-earning bank account in the names of the advocates on record for the parties within thirty (30) days from the date of the Ruling
- 2.Costs shall be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mbogo v Amitruck Limited (Cause E600 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2712 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E600 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2712/eng@2025-10-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.