Manguthl Simon Isingoma, Saverio Calocero Spinicah & Matara Moraa v Sobetra Uganda Kenya Limited & ICM SPA Limited
The bottom line
#The Employment Court in Machakos refused to order an employer to deposit Kshs. 7.2 million in court because the employees could not prove the employer was hiding or selling assets.
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 order the 1st Respondent to deposit Kshs. 7,201,466.73, being the admitted terminal dues, pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Whether the Court should direct the Interested Party/2nd Respondent to withhold, retain or pay into Court monies due to the 1st Respondent
- 3.Whether the Applicants demonstrated circumstances justifying attachment before judgment or security for due performance of a decree
Key legal issues
#Whether the Court had power to order deposit of cash in court
The applicants did not set out the rules allowing the prayer; Order 39 CPR grants power to order a defendant to furnish security or attach property conditionally where the defendant intends to obstruct or delay execution
The court noted the application was brought under the Constitution, sections 3 and 12 of the Employment Act and Rule 45 of the ELRC Rules, but Rule 45 only provides for filing and issuance of interlocutory applications. The applicants did not identify a rule permitting deposit of cash in court. Order 39 CPR was held to offer the relevant power, conditioned on proof of intent to obstruct or delay execution by disposing of or removing property.
Whether the Applicants demonstrated the threshold for attachment before judgment or security
They did not; there was no demonstration that the respondents were disposing of or removing property or intended to obstruct, delay or defeat execution
Despite allegations of cessation of operations, disposal of assets and risk of dissipation, the court found the applicants had not demonstrated that the respondents were disposing of or removing property. The fact required under Order 39 CPR - intent to obstruct, delay or defeat execution - was not demonstrated, so the extraordinary relief could not issue at the interlocutory stage.
Legal principles established
#- An order for security under Order 39 CPR can only issue where it is clear the defendant intends to obstruct, delay or defeat execution by disposing of or removing property
Court orders
#- 1.Application declined in its entirety
- 2.Parties urged to continue with their claim/cause
- 3.Costs shall be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Constitution, sections 3 and 12 of the Employment Act and Rule 45 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Rules
Relief refused
#Order for 1st Respondent to deposit Kshs. 7,201,466.73 in Court
Applicants did not demonstrate that respondents are disposing of or removing property, nor intent to obstruct, delay or defeat execution
Orders directing the Interested Party to withhold, retain or pay into Court monies due to the 1st Respondent
Prayer sought not tenable at this stage
Application of any withheld monies towards satisfaction of any decree
Follows from dismissal of the deposit and withholding prayers
Costs of the application provided for
Costs ordered to be in the cause instead
Costs
Costs shall be in the cause.
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.
The applicant has not set out the rules that allow them to pray for the depositing of the cash in court.
In the current application, the applicant has not demonstrated that the respondents are disposing of their property nor removing it as the case may be.
the order for security can only issue if it is clear that the defendant intends to obstruct, delay or defeat execution which fact has not been demonstrated.
I do not find the prayer sought tenable at this stage. I decline to grant them accordingly and urge the parties to continue with their claim/cause. Costs shall be in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#Party names in the cause heading are garbled and split across lines, making exact party names uncertain
Cause heading dated 2026 but judgment delivered 24th September 2026; termination dates in 2024 described as 'nearly two years later'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Manguthl Simon Isingoma, Saverio Calocero Spinicah & Matara Moraa v Sobetra Uganda Kenya Limited & ICM SPA Limited", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Cause No. E034 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2609/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.