Abraaj Investment Management Ltd & Ors v KES Power Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 65 (Comm) (16 January 2026)

Abraaj Investment Management Ltd & Ors v KES Power Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 65 (Comm) (16 January 2026)

The disputed debt became due and payable upon expiry of the CSA on 31 December 2016. The assignment to Mashreq was ineffective as AH had no power to assign the debt owed to AIML. Assignment to SAGE did not trigger payment nor override the requirement for KESP's consent under clause 22. The debt remains payable to AIML or its valid assignee, subject to compliance with assignment provisions.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 65 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Abraaj Investment Management Limited (in Liquidation); Claimant: Sage Venture Group Limited; Claimant: K Power Holdings Limited; Defendant: Kes Power Limited; Defendant: Shan-e-Abbas Ashary; Defendant: Mashreqbank PSC; Defendant: Keiran Hutchinson (in his capacity as receiver); Defendant: Hani Bishara (in his capacity as receiver)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; declaration as to payability and entitlement to debt.
Legal Topics
Assignment of Debt, Interpretation of Contract, Liquidation, Security Interests, Estoppel
Commercial Law Contract Law Insolvency Law Assignment of Debt Interpretation of Contract Liquidation Security Interests Estoppel

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abraaj Investment Management Limited (in Liquidation)

Claimant

Sage Venture Group Limited

Claimant

K Power Holdings Limited

Claimant

Kes Power Limited

Defendant

Shan-e-Abbas Ashary

Defendant

Mashreqbank PSC

Defendant

Keiran Hutchinson (in his capacity as receiver)

Defendant

Hani Bishara (in his capacity as receiver)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the disputed debt due and payable, and in what amount?
  2. 2 Is the debt payable to AIML, SAGE, KPHL, or Mashreq?
  3. 3 Was the assignment to Mashreq effective?

Ratio Decidendi

The disputed debt became due and payable upon expiry of the CSA on 31 December 2016. The assignment to Mashreq was ineffective as AH had no power to assign the debt owed to AIML. Assignment to SAGE did not trigger payment nor override the requirement for KESP's consent under clause 22. The debt remains payable to AIML or its valid assignee, subject to compliance with assignment provisions.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; declaration as to payability and entitlement to debt.

Orders

  • Declaration that the disputed debt of US$41,446,114 is due and payable by KESP.
  • Declaration that the debt is payable to AIML or its valid assignee, subject to assignment provisions.