[2002] KEHC 1064 (KLR)
The court found that the substituted service by advertisement in the Kenya Times was not satisfactory, as the applicant was not in a position to read the notice and the wording of the advertisement was misleading and oppressive. Furthermore, Order 21 Rule 36 does not authorize the imposition of personal liability on...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEHC 1064 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: General Tyre Salep Ltd; Defendant: Garex (K) Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 153 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Orders and for Leave to Defend
- Outcome
- Application allowed; previous order set aside; leave to defend granted.
- Legal Topics
- Substituted Service, Setting Aside Orders, Examination of Directors, Corporate Liability
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
General Tyre Salep Ltd
Plaintiff
Garex (K) Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Orders and for Leave to Defend
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the substituted service by advertisement in the Kenya Times was valid and sufficient notice to the applicant.
- 2 Whether the court order of 4/9/2001 placing liability on the directors to satisfy the debt was lawful under Order 21 rule 36.
- 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to have the order set aside and to be granted leave to defend the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the substituted service by advertisement in the Kenya Times was not satisfactory, as the applicant was not in a position to read the notice and the wording of the advertisement was misleading and oppressive. Furthermore, Order 21 Rule 36 does not authorize the imposition of personal liability on directors of a corporation for the company’s debts unless there is a separate personal guarantee. The court concluded that the order of 4/9/2001 was improperly made and should be set aside. The applicant was therefore entitled to have the order set aside and to be granted leave to defend the application dated 17/11/2000.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; previous order set aside; leave to defend granted.
Orders
- The court order made on 4/9/2001 is set aside.
- The applicant is granted leave to defend the application dated 17/11/2000.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
DRAFT
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CIVIL SUIT NO.153 OF 1998
GENERAL TYRE SALEP LTD …………………………….. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
GAREX (K) LTD …………………………….…………….. DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The application dated 23/1/2002 seeks to set aside orders made on 4. 9.2001 in this suit ordering the directors to personally satisfy the debt and pay costs of this case. It is also sought to grant leave to defend the Notice of Motion dated 17. 11. 200. The application is grounded on the grounds on the application and is supported by affidavit of the applicant. Basically the applicant swears that she was not in Kenya on 7. 8.2001 and could not have read the Kenya Times and that day she did not read it on any other day. And that the order made was illegal and contrary to Order 21 rule 36 under which it was purportedly made. I have read the lengthy grounds and supporting affidavit.I am satisfied that the applicant was not in a position to read the notice of service in the Kenya. Times of 7/8/2001. Further more I find the advertised “Substituted Service By Advertisement” to be misleading in that the words “---- you be ordered jointly and severally to settle the decree holder’s claim against judgment debtor. Further that the decree holder be granted leave to execute the decree herein against yourselves as directors of judgment debtor in execution of decree issued against you in the High Court -------“ misleading and oppressive. They should not have been in the notice. The application dated the 17. 11. 2000 simply reads –
1. That the named directors of the judgment debtor be orally examined as to whether any or what debts are owing to the judgment debtor and whether the judgment debtor has any and what property or means of satisfying decree and –
2. That the persons named attend to be examined and-
3. That they produce any books or documents relevant to the way in which the judgment debtor company was being run orcarrying on its transactions and operations.”
The Civil Procedure Order 21 Rule 36 states as follows:-
“Where a decree is for the payment of money the decree-holder may apply to the court for an order that –
a) Judgment debtor, or
b) In the case of a corporation any officer thereof, or
c) Any pother person by orally examined as to whether any or what debts are owing to the judgment debtor, and whether the judgment debtor has any and what property or means of satisfying the decree and the Court may make an order for the attendance and examination of such judgment debtor or officer, or other person, and for the production of any books or documents”
In this case no liability is placed on the directors of the corporation. It being a legal entity. In this case one of the directors, not the Applicant, had guaranteed payment of the judgment debt. That must have been in his personal capacity.
In the circumstances I am of the view that service was not satisfactory, and therefore the applicant is entitled to order to set aside the court order made on 4/9/2001. She is also granted leave to defend the application dated 17. 11. 2001.
The costs of this application shall be paid by the Respondent.
Dated at Mombasa this 10th Day of April, 2002.
J. KHAMINWA
COMMISSIONER OF ASSIZE
In the presence of Mr. Kinyua and Mr. Kinyanjui.
Mr. Kinyanjui:
I apply for copy of the Ruling.
Court:Supply upon payment of copying charges.
J. KHAMINWA
COMMISSIONER OF ASSIZE