REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CAUSE NO. 1772 OF 2013 KEVIN MICHAEL DUNLOP ……………….……….. CLAIMANT VERSUS CMC MOTORS GROUP LIMITED ….….…….. 1ST RESPONDENT JAMES KARIUKI T/A NDARUGU MERCHANTS …………….…….. 2ND RESPONDENT RULING 1. The Applicant filed a notice of motion dated 25 th February 2014 seeking an order in the following terms; (1) that the 1st Respondent’s Statement of Defence dated 16th December, 2013 and filed on 18th December, 2013 be struck and judgment be entered in favour of the Claimant and against the Respondents as prayed in the Claimant’s Memorandum of Claim. (2) that in the alternative to 2 above the 1st Respondent be ordered to deposit the sum of Kshs.12,504,076.00 in this Honourable Court as security for satisfaction of any decree that may be passed against it in the suit herein. 2. There is no basis at all for the orders sought in that: the Memorandum of Defence is in the Court file and if need be, the Applicant is at liberty to obtain a copy of the same for purpose of filing a response for any event a reasonable explanation was given why there was a delay in serving the Statement of Defence. 4. With respect to the second prayer sought, the 1 st Respondent is a public company listed in the Kenya Stock Market and if the same is brought out by the said prospective buyers the law governing such a taken over shall cover the interest of persons with pending suits against the 1 st Respondent. 5. The Application to get the 1st Respondent to deposit the sum of Kshs.12,504,076/= as security for satisfaction of any decree that may be passed against it lacks merit and same is dismissed with costs. Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this 19th day of December, 2014 MATHEWS N. NDUMA PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Original judgment
Kevin Michael Dunlop v CMC Motors Group Limited & another [2014] KEELRC 16 (KLR)
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.