Mbugua v Business Registration Services (BRS) & 3 others (Commercial Miscellaneous Application E006 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 9622 (KLR) (1 July 2026) (Ruling)

Mbugua v Business Registration Services (BRS) & 3 others (Commercial Miscellaneous Application E006 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 9622 (KLR) (1 July 2026) (Ruling)

The application sought reliefs that would affect the rights of the company’s directors, so it could not properly be pursued by miscellaneous application. The applicant was required to file a substantive suit; therefore, the unopposed application was defective and had to be struck out.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 9622 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Grace Wanjiru Mbugua; 1st Respondent: Business Registration Service (BRS); 2nd Respondent: Precious Hands Pharmaceuticals Limited; 3rd and 4th Respondents: 2 Others
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Commercial Miscellaneous Application E006 of 2026
Procedural Posture
Commercial Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Unopposed Notice of Motion; Application Struck Out
Outcome
Application struck out
Judges
["JM Nang'ea"]
Legal Topics
Rectification of Company Register, Removal of Directors, Miscellaneous Application Procedure, Competency of Application, Costs
Source Language
en
Commercial Law Company Law Civil Procedure Rectification of Company Register Removal of Directors Miscellaneous Application Procedure Competency of Application Costs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grace Wanjiru Mbugua

Applicant

Business Registration Service (BRS)

1st Respondent

Precious Hands Pharmaceuticals Limited

2nd Respondent

2 Others

3rd and 4th Respondents

Procedural Posture

Commercial Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Unopposed Notice of Motion; Application Struck Out

  1. 1 Whether a miscellaneous application was the proper procedure for the reliefs sought
  2. 2 Whether the court should order rectification of the company register and amendment of CR12 without a substantive suit
  3. 3 Whether the application should be struck out despite being unopposed

Ratio Decidendi

The application sought reliefs that would affect the rights of the company’s directors, so it could not properly be pursued by miscellaneous application. The applicant was required to file a substantive suit; therefore, the unopposed application was defective and had to be struck out.

Court Disposition

Application struck out

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 15/4/2026 is struck out.
  • No order as to costs.