[2011] KEHC 3406 (KLR)

[2011] KEHC 3406 (KLR)

The court found that the Plaintiff had established sufficient grounds for the orders sought, as the decree remained unsatisfied, the 1st Defendant company was no longer operational, and there was evidence suggesting disposal of assets by its directors. The court held that under Order 35 Rule 35 of the Civil...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] KEHC 3406 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Kiplangat Arap Chebosir; Defendant: Linear Coach Co. Ltd; Defendant: Joseph Njogu Karanja
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kericho
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 46 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Oral Examination of Directors
Outcome
Application allowed. Orders granted as prayed in the Chamber Summons dated 11th September 2007.
Legal Topics
Judgment Enforcement, Oral Examination of Directors, Corporate Liability, Unsatisfied Decree
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Judgment Enforcement Oral Examination of Directors Corporate Liability Unsatisfied Decree

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kiplangat Arap Chebosir

Plaintiff

Linear Coach Co. Ltd

Defendant

Joseph Njogu Karanja

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Oral Examination of Directors

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to orders for oral examination of the directors of the 1st Defendant company to ascertain means of satisfying the decree.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to an order for production of the 1st Defendant's books of accounts.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiff had established sufficient grounds for the orders sought, as the decree remained unsatisfied, the 1st Defendant company was no longer operational, and there was evidence suggesting disposal of assets by its directors. The court held that under Order 35 Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, the Plaintiff was entitled to seek oral examination of the directors and production of the company’s books of accounts to facilitate enforcement of the decree. The lack of opposition from the Defendants further justified granting the application. Accordingly, the court allowed the application and granted the orders as prayed in the Chamber Summons dated 11th...

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Orders granted as prayed in the Chamber Summons dated 11th September 2007.

Orders

  • Directors of the 1st Defendant to attend court for oral examination as to the property of the 1st Defendant and means of satisfying the decree.
  • Directors to produce books of accounts of the 1st Defendant.