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

Kiguru v Uptext East Africa Limited & another (Cause E1109 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2703 (KLR) (3 October 2025) (Ruling)

[2025] KEELRC 2703 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
2703
Citation
[2025] KEELRC 2703 (KLR)
Decided
3 October 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeReview of Employment and Labour Relations Court RulingPostureRespondents/Applicants seek review of the Court's RulingCoramSC RUTTO
Holding

The Application is dismissed with an order that costs shall be in the cause

Facts

The Applicants sought a review of the Court's Ruling directing them to deposit USD 14,000 in a joint interest-earning account and stay execution pending the suit. The Court found that the Applicants did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claim of an error in the ruling.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants have established sufficient grounds to warrant review of the Ruling
  2. Whether the Court's order for security was based on a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record

Reasoning

The Court found that the Applicants did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claim of an error in the ruling and that the order for security was based on a credible apprehension that the ultimate satisfaction of a potential judgment could be defeated or frustrated.

Outcome

Dismissed

Orders

  • Order that costs shall be in the cause

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024
  • Civil Procedure Rules
  • Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya)
Cases cited (1)
  • National Bank of Kenya Ltd vs Ndungu Njau (1997) eKLR
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