Ecobank Kenya Limited v Minolta Limited & 6 others (Civil Case 296 of 2017) [2026] KEHC 11553 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (23 July 2026) (Ruling)

Ecobank Kenya Limited v Minolta Limited & 6 others (Civil Case 296 of 2017) [2026] KEHC 11553 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (23 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11553 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts) Commercial and Tax Civil Case 296 of 2017 F Gikonyo, J July 23, 2026 Between Ecobank Kenya Limited Decree holder and Minolta Limited 1st Judgment debtor Joseph Michael adede 2nd Judgment debtor Caroline Mlale Mbela Adede 3rd Judgment debtor and Central Depository and Settlement Corporation 1st Interested Party Director General of the National Transport and Safety Authority 2nd Interested Party Director General of Business Registration Service 3rd Interested Party Chief Land Registrar 4th Interested Party Ruling Discovery of assets 1.The decree holder/ applicant filed the notice of motion dated 23.4.2025 amended on 2.5.2025 seeking discovery and attachment of the judgment debtors various movable and immovable assets as the decree has not been satisfied and the judgment debtors have refused to pay the decretal sum. 2.The application is supported by the affidavit sworn by the applicant’s remedial manager, Edith Wanjiku, on 2.5.2025 and written submissions. 3.The application is anchored on sections 1B, 3A and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Directions 4.On 4.12.2025, the ruling order scheduling this matter for ruling was vacated because the court did not find the affidavit of service in respect of the application and the submissions either on the Judiciary’s Case Tracking System or the physical file. 5.On 23.1.2026, the applicant uploaded the affidavit of service sworn on 22.1.2026 by, licensed court process server, Peter Ngeno confirming service of the application upon the judgment debtors and the interested parties. 6.Despite service, there was no response filed by the judgment debtors. Applicant’s case 7.The applicant’s case is that on 14th September 2017, judgement was entered against the respondents for the sum of Kshs. 108,693,289.36 together with interest thereon at its commercial rate of 17.03% per annum from 5.5.2017 until payment in full and costs of the suit on an advocate-client basis and interest thereon at court rates until payment in full. 8.The respondent applied to set aside the default judgment, and the application was dismissed with costs on 16.3.2018. 9.It has applied to execute the decree in the past without success as warrants of attachment of movable assets could not be executed as the goods were moved from Nairobi to Machakos. Further, warrants of arrest could not be executed as the respondents’ whereabouts are unknown. 10.It is unaware of any assets of the judgment debtors. 11.The applicant relied on Section 38 of the Civil Procedure Act on the court’s power to enforce execution and Article 35 of the Constitution on the right to access to information to assert that the court has jurisdiction to grant the orders sought. 12.The applicant also relied on Section 7(2) as read with Section 10 of the Land Registration Act. 13.The applicant relied on the following cases: -1.Nairobi Law Monthly Company Ltd v Kenya Electricity Generating Company & 2 others; International Commission of Jurists (Kenya) Ltd & another (Interested Parties); Transparency International & another (Amicus Curiae) [2013] KEHC 6054 (KLR)2.Pondor (Suing on Behalf of the International Air Transport Association) & another v Debonair Travel Limited & 2 others; Director General, National TransportAnd Safety Authority & 2 others (Interested Parties) [2026] KEHC 3242 (KLR)3.Republic v Land Registrar Kitui County & 2 others; Kisumba (Exparte); Muo (Interested Party) (Judicial Review E004 of 2021) [2022] eKLR4.International Air Transport Association & another v Akarim Agencies Company Limited & 2 others [2014] KEHC 7523 (KLR) Analysis and Determination Issue and context 14.The broad issue is whether the application is merited. 15.From the outset, the respondents are cited as interested parties in the suit and they were served with the application. The orders sought are in the nature of access to information and discovery as well as prohibitory orders of attachment. Ordinarily, discovery may be ordered against a party in the suit. Nevertheless, the applicant must specify the specific information and or documents as well as the purpose for which they seek them, linking them to the proceeding and showing that the information and or document is necessary or required for the exercise or protection of a right. Art.35 of the Constitution and Access to Information Act. The applicant has a judgment and has a right to realize the fruits of the judgment. Thus, the application is well founded. 16.But, are the orders deserved? 17.Prayer 2 seeks an order attaching all shares belonging to the respondents and that the respondents or their agents be restrained from transferring or disposing of any shares they own in any listed company in the Nairobi Stock Exchange and the Central Depository Corporation do freeze any and all of the accounts in the names of the respondents and furnish the applicant with all records of shares owned by the judgment debtors to facilitate the attachment and sale of the shares. 18.Prayer 3 seeks an order directing the Director General of the National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) to provide the applicant’s advocates and the court all entries related to all motor vehicles registered in the respondents’ names. 19.It also seeks an order to restrain the respondents or their agents from transferring or disposing the motor vehicles pending the attachment and sale and that such order be registered by the Director General of NTSA. 20.Prayer 4 seeks an order directing the Director General of the Business Registration Service to provide all entries related to all businesses registered in favour of the respondents. 21.Prayer 5 seeks an order directing the Chief Land Registrar to provide all specifics of immovable properties registered in the names of the respondents. 22.It also seeks a prohibitory order be registered against any immovable property owned by the judgment debtors. Access to information 23.Article 35 (1) (a)& (b) of the Constitution gives every citizen, as of right, access to information held by the State or another person. Nairobi Law Monthly Company Ltd v Kenya Electricity Generating Company & 2 others [supra] 24.The respondents and the interested parties were served. However, there was no response by the respondents or the interested parties. The interested parties are cited as parties in the suit. Therefore, orders for access to information, discovery and attachment may be issued directed at them being the custodians of the relevant information and record of assets. 25.The applicant has provided reasons why the information is required; to enable them realize their right to the fruits of judgment against the judgment debtors. 26.There is no good reason provided or apparent why the interested parties should not provide the relevant information. 27.Hence, I am satisfied that the orders for discovery or provision of the information by the interested parties are merited. Restraining orders 28.Order 40 (1) (b) of the Civil Procedure Rules states: -1.Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise—(b)that the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property in circumstances affording reasonable probability that the plaintiff will or may be obstructed or delayed in the execution of any decree that may be passed against the defendant in the suit, the court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal, or disposition of the property as the court thinks fit until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.” 29.The applicant deposed that its past attempts to execute through the attachment and sale of the respondents’ movable assets have been rendered futile because of their movement. 30.However, the applicant has not indicated the property which is about to be disposed of. 31.This court in International Air Transport Association & another v Akarim Agencies Company Limited & 2 others [supra] observed that the property which has been disposed of or is about to be disposed of or removed from the jurisdiction must also be specified if an order is to issue under those two rules. (rules 39 and 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules.) 32.For the freezing orders, the applicant must show, inter alia that the defendant appears to have assets within the jurisdiction and that there is a real risk that those assets will be removed from the jurisdiction or otherwise dissipated if the injunction is not granted. International Air Transport Association & another v Akarim Agencies Company Limited & 2 others [supra] 33.Therefore, the prayers for the injunctions and freezing orders are deferred. Disposal 34.In the upshot, the application amended on 2.5.2025 is allowed in part, in the following terms: -1.The Central Depository Corporation to furnish the applicant with all records of shares owned by the judgment debtors.2.The Director General of the National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) to provide the applicant’s advocates and the court all entries related to all motor vehicles registered in the respondents’ names.3.The Director General of the Business Registration Service to provide all entries related to all businesses registered in favour of the respondents.4.The Chief Land Registrar to provide all specifics of immovable properties registered in the names of the respondents. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE APPLICATION THIS 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2026-----------------F. GIKONYO MJUDGEIn the presence of: -Otieno for Gichuhi for Decree HolderNo appearance by Judgment DebtorCA- Aggrey