SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Ndubi v Utumoja Technologies Ltd (Cause E427 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2553 (KLR) (18 October 2024) (Ruling)

[2024] KEELRC 2553 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
2553
Citation
[2024] KEELRC 2553 (KLR)
Decided
18 October 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeApplication for AttachmentPostureRespondent's Application for Attachment Pending HearingCoramSC RUTTO
Holding

The Court finds the Application merited and directs the Respondent to deposit an amount equal to the sum sought in the Memorandum of Claim pending hearing and determination of the suit.

Facts

The Applicant, Sharon Feliste Ndubi, claims that the Respondent, Utumoja Technologies Ltd, illegally deducted her salary of Kshs. 140,000.00 over eight months, totaling Kshs. 2,599,767.68. The Respondent terminated the contract without notice.

Issues

  1. Whether the Application is merited
  2. Whether the Respondent is about to dispose of or remove property with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree

Reasoning

The Court applies Order 39 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, requiring the applicant to show the Respondent is about to dispose of property or remove it from jurisdiction with intent to obstruct or delay a decree. The Court finds the Applicant has shown sufficient grounds.

Outcome

The Court finds the Application merited.

Orders

  • Order directing the Respondent to deposit an amount equal to the sum sought in the Memorandum of Claim pending hearing and determination of the suit

Remedies

  • Attachment of property pending hearing and determination of the suit

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules, Order 39 Rule 5
Cases cited (2)
  • Saving and Loan Kenya Limited v Erustus Mwangi Mungai
  • Afrofreight Forwarders (K) Ltd v Kenya Railways Corporation
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case