Osuku v Coastal Kenya Enterprises Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E143 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8559 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court struck out a worker's bid to freeze his ex-employer's property because he never proved the employer actually owned it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Court should issue an inhibition order restraining the Respondent from disposing of Plot No. 12458/6 until the Applicant's claim in ELRC No. E70 OF 2024 is heard and determined
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant met the threshold for an inhibition order / temporary injunction under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules
The application was premature and was struck out because the Applicant failed to prove ownership of the suit property by the Respondent and failed to prove an intention to dispose of it to defeat execution
The court examined the supporting affidavit annexures and found no official search or copy of title proving that the Respondent owned Plot No. 12458/6. Although the application was unopposed, the evidential burden remained on the Applicant. Further, the requirements of Order 40 on threatened or intended disposal of property were not proved. In the circumstances the motion was struck out as premature.
Legal principles established
#- An unopposed application must still be established on the evidence; the burden remains on the Applicant to prove ownership of the property against which an inhibition is sought
- Order 40 temporary injunction relief requires proof that the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of property to obstruct or delay execution of a decree
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 14th May 2025 is struck out as premature
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent interlocutory jurisdiction under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 68 of the Land Registration Act invoked by the Applicant for inhibition orders
Relief refused
#Inhibition order registered on Title Plot No. 12458/6, Enterprise Road, and maintenance of status quo pending hearing of ELRC No. E70 OF 2024
Applicant failed to prove the Respondent's ownership of the suit property or that the Respondent threatened or intended to dispose of it to obstruct execution of any decree
Costs
No costs order made in the judgment; the application was simply struck out
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the circumstance, I find the instant Notice of Motion application premature and will proceed to strike it out.
Insofar as this application is unopposed, I opine that it was incumbent upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the Respondent owned the aforementioned plot, which he has failed to do.
The Court must remain vigilant and proactive in ensuring that its judgments are not rendered hollow by strategic conduct aimed at evading enforcement.
Issues in the judgment
#The parties and the case number of the present application are not identified in the judgment extract; only the related suit ELRC No. E70 OF 2024 is named
The application sought costs but the court made no costs order when striking it out
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Osuku v Coastal Kenya Enterprises Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E143 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8559 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (application dated 14th May 2025; related suit ELRC No. E70 OF 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8559/eng@2025-12-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.