[2011] KEHC 821 (KLR)
The court found that the 2nd and 3rd defendants, as directors of the 1st defendant, could not be sued in their personal capacities for actions undertaken by the company. The agreement forming the basis of the plaintiff's claim was between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant only, with no mention of the 2nd and 3rd...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 821 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Gilbert Chege t/a Eldoret Conference Center; Defendant: Kenya Institute of Applied Science; Defendant: Jackson Adede Iravunah; Defendant: Evelyn Iravunah
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 206 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Parties
- Outcome
- Application allowed; 2nd and 3rd defendants struck out as parties.
- Legal Topics
- Company Directors Liability, Corporate Personality, Joinder of Parties
- 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
Gilbert Chege t/a Eldoret Conference Center
Plaintiff
Kenya Institute of Applied Science
Defendant
Jackson Adede Iravunah
Defendant
Evelyn Iravunah
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Parties
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether directors of a company can be sued in their personal capacity for actions of the company.
- 2 Whether the 2nd and 3rd defendants were properly joined as parties to the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the 2nd and 3rd defendants, as directors of the 1st defendant, could not be sued in their personal capacities for actions undertaken by the company. The agreement forming the basis of the plaintiff's claim was between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant only, with no mention of the 2nd and 3rd defendants as parties. The court emphasized the principle of separate corporate personality, holding that the company alone bears responsibility for its obligations. Consequently, the joinder of the 2nd and 3rd defendants was improper, and their names were ordered to be struck out from the suit.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; 2nd and 3rd defendants struck out as parties.
Orders
- The 2nd and 3rd defendants are hereby struck out of the suit.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT ELDORET
CIVIL SUIT NO. 206 OF 2011
GILBERT CHEGE
T/A ELDORET CONFERENCE CENTER:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KENYA INSTITUTE OF APPLIED SCIENCE:::::::::::::::::::::::::::1ST DEFENDANT
JACKSON ADEDE IRAVUNAH::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::2ND DEFENDANT
EVELYN IRAVUNAH:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::3RD DEFENDANT
RULING
The 2nd defendant, Jackson Adede Iravunah and the 3rd defendant, Evelyn Iravunah,have applied, by Chamber Summons dated 16th September, 2010 for one order namely that their names be struck out for being improperly enjoined in this suit. They contend that as directors of the 1st defendant they cannot be sued in their own names for claims against the 1st defendant.
The plaintiff, on his part, contends that at the time he dealt with the 2nd and 3rd defendants, they did not disclose that they were acting as directors of the 1st defendant and it would now be unfair to accede to the order they seek, since they are necessary parties.
The plaintiff, in his plaint, describes the 1st defendant as a private institute having a common seal with registered offices in Nairobi and Eldoret. In paragraph 5 of the same plaint, he avers that he entered into a contract with the defendant to buy hostel business from the 1st defendant. In the agreement exhibited by the plaintiff, the only parties thereto are the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. The 2nd and 3rd defendants are mentioned nowhere.
It is plain that the plaintiff does not appreciate the separate corporate identity of the 1st defendant hence his contention that he did not know that he was dealing with the 2nd and 3rd defendants as the directors of the 1st defendant yet the agreement of sale which is the foundation of his claim is in the name of the 1st defendant as the only seller of the hostel business. It is a basic principle of Company Law that a company has a distinction and separate personality from its shareholders and directors even where the directors are also the shareholders. (See the precedent setting case of Salomon -Vs- Salomon and Company Limited [1957] AC 22. ) As a separate legal entity, its property is distinct from that of its shareholders and directors. It follows therefore that if the company herein sold its property or business to the plaintiff, it is only proper that it bears the consequences. In the premises, I find and hold that the 2nd and 3rd defendants, as directors of the 1st defendant have no capacity to be sued for wrongs committed by the 1st defendant and have therefore improperly been joined in this suit.
I accordingly allow the 2nd and 3rd defendants’ application dated 10th September, 2010 and order that the two be and are hereby struck out of this suit.
As the plaintiff appears to have dealt with the two, the proper order on costs is that each party bears its own costs.
It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET
THIS 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011
F. AZANGALALA
JUDGE
Read in the presence of:
Mr. Kitur H/B for Mr. Kathili for the plaintiff and
Mr. Chepkwony H/B for Mr. Andambi for 2nd & 3rd Defendants
F. AZANGALALA
JUDGE
7TH DECEMBER, 2011