[2023] KEHC 1187 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 1187 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent had failed to respond to the application or attend court despite proper service. The applicant demonstrated that the respondent, through its directors, shareholders, and associated companies, was attempting to frustrate enforcement of the arbitral award by concealing or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 1187 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Instacon East Africa Limited; Respondent: Haussmann Group Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Arbitration Cause 005 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Cause / Ruling on Unopposed Notice of Motion Application for Enforcement and Lifting of Corporate Veil
Outcome
Application allowed as unopposed; orders granted as sought by the applicant.
Judges
DO Chepkwony
Legal Topics
Arbitration Enforcement, Lifting Corporate Veil, Judgment Debtor Liability, Joinder of Parties
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Arbitration Enforcement Lifting Corporate Veil Judgment Debtor Liability Joinder of Parties

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Instacon East Africa Limited

Applicant

Haussmann Group Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Cause / Ruling on Unopposed Notice of Motion Application for Enforcement and Lifting of Corporate Veil

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to enforcement of the arbitral award against the respondent and its associated companies and directors.
  2. 2 Whether the corporate veil should be lifted to attach the assets of the respondent's directors, shareholders, and associated companies to satisfy the decretal amount.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent and its associates should be orally examined and compelled to produce documents regarding their assets.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent had failed to respond to the application or attend court despite proper service. The applicant demonstrated that the respondent, through its directors, shareholders, and associated companies, was attempting to frustrate enforcement of the arbitral award by concealing or dissipating assets. The court held that this conduct justified lifting the corporate veil to allow the applicant to pursue enforcement against the respondent's directors, shareholders, and associated companies. The court further ordered the joinder of the associated companies and individuals, attachment and restriction of dealings with identified property, and oral examination of the...

Court Disposition

Application allowed as unopposed; orders granted as sought by the applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent's directors, shareholders, and associated companies (Muteero Property Limited, Haussmann Engineering Services Limited, Afrigroup Kenya Limited, Etc Interiors Limited, Haussmann Group Africa) are enjoined in the proceedings for purposes of lifting the corporate veil and attaching their assets to...
  • Muteero Property Limited is restrained from dealing with, selling, or transferring property L.R. No. 7553/189 (ORIG. No. 77583/187/2) in Karen-Nairobi worth KES 110,000,000.