https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8802

Mbugua v Komaza Forestry Ltd (Miscellaneous Civil Cause E011 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8802 (KLR) (Civ) (23 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8802 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nyandarua Civil Miscellaneous Civil Cause E011 of 2025 KW Kiarie, J June 23, 2026 Between Lawrence Wangai Mbugua Applicant and Komaza Forestry Limited Respondent Ruling 1.Komaza Forestry Limited, the respondent/applicant, moved the court through a Notice of Motion dated the 13th day of April 2026. The application is brought under sections 1A, 3A, and 3B of the Civil Procedure Act, and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. They are seeking the following orders:a.That this application be certified urgent and be heard ex parte in the first instance. [Spent]b.That pending the inter partes hearing and determination of this application, this honourable court be pleased to grant orders to stay the execution of the ruling dated 27th February 2026, the warrants of attachment dated 30th March 2026 and Proclamation notice dated 9th April 2026 by Kingstar Auctioneers in Olkalou MCELRCMISC NO.004 of 2025; Lawrence Wangui Mbugua -vs.- Komaza Forestry Limited (under Administration) together with all consequential orders and proceedings thereto.c.That an order be issued to set aside/ cancel and/or discharge the warrants of attachment dated March 2026 and Proclamation notice dated 9th April 2026 by Kingstar Auctioneers in Olkalou MCELRCMISC NO 004 of 2025 Lawrence Wangui Mbugua- vs - Komaza Forestry. Limited (Under Administration).d.That this Honourable Court be pleased to interpret and/clarify its Order dated 29 April 2025 to reflect its interpretation as per its ruling on October, 2025 to the effect that leave granted to the applicant did not give him any right except the right to present his case for determination on merits.e.The Costs of this application be provided for 2.The application is premised on the following grounds:a.On 9th April, 2026, the applicant, through its agents Kingstar Auctioneers, issued warrants of attachment dated March 2026 and a proclamation Notice dated 9th April. 2026 to the respondent (under administration).b.The respondent herein was placed under administration on 1st November, 2023, with Julius Ngonga and Anthony Makenzi Muthusi appointed as joint administrators over the respondent's property, and the administration order has since been extended by court orders dated 31st October, 2024, 6th May, 2025 and 26th November, 2025.c.On 25th April, 2025, this honourable court granted the applicant leave to proceed with enforcement proceedings in Olkalou MCELRCMISC. No. 004 of 2025; Lawrence Wangai Mbugua -vs- Komaza Forestry Limited (under administration).d.By way of an application dated 5th June 2025, the respondent sought to set aside the said orders owing to the fact that they were given in the interim without being given a chance to respond to the application.e.Having been granted leave to commence its application, the applicant proceeded with prosecuting its application in Olkalou MCELRCMISC NO. 004 of 2025 and the OI Kalou court delivered its ruling on 27th February, 2026, allowing its application.f.Contrary to this court's ruling and the provisions of the Insolvency Act, the applicant has purported to initiate execution proceedings against the respondent Company despite only being granted leave to commence/ proceed with their application, which leave did not extend to execution.g.The execution by the applicant is contrary to the Insolvency process and the provisions of Section 522 of the Insolvency Act and would amount to giving the applicant's claim preferential treatment over all the other creditors of the company, contrary to the Insolvency Act.h.The proclamation Notice is set to lapse on 15th April, 2026, and as such, there is obvious and imminent danger that the applicant will proceed to proclaim the applicant's property unless this application is certified urgent and heard forthwith.i.The respondent will be greatly prejudiced and shall suffer irreparable injury unless the orders sought therein are granted.j.It is in the interest of justice and fairness that the orders sought herein are granted.k.There is a real danger of execution against the applicant if execution is not stayed. 3.The applicant/respondent opposed the application on the following grounds:a.The application before the court is not only wholly defective but an abuse of the court process.b.That vide an order dated 25th April, 2025, this court granted leave to commence proceedings against the respondent.c.That vide a ruling of the court dated 9th October, 2025, the respondent’s challenge of the leave granted herein was dismissed.d.That vide a consent of the parties’ advocates dated 16th April, 2026; the respondent committed to settle the said award within 14 days from 16th April, 2025. [sic]e.That it is an abuse of the court process for the respondent to commit to settle the claim 14 days from 16th April 2026 and even to allow for execution in the event of default, then come back to court to challenge execution. 4.The two parties entered into a consent dated 16th day of April 2026. The consent reads:By consent of the parties herein:a.The decree/order dated 23rd March 2026, the warrants of attachment dated 30th March 2026 and the proclamation order dated 9th of April 2026 be stayed for 14 days until 1st of May 2026.b.Before or at the end of the stay period, the respondent to present the applicant with a confirmation on when the decretal sum will be paid to the applicant and/or proof of payment of the decretal sum to the applicant.c.In default of payment within the said 14 days, the applicant be at liberty to execute without further reference to the respondent. 5.Section 522 of the Insolvency Act provides:(1)The objectives of the administration of a company are the following—(a)to maintain the company as a going concern;(b)to achieve a better outcome for the company's creditors as a whole than would likely to be the case if the company were liquidated (without first being under administration);(c)to realise the property of the company in order to make a distribution to one or more secured or preferential creditors.(2)Subject to subsection (4), the administrator of a company shall perform the administrator's functions in the interests of the company's creditors as a whole.(3)The administrator shall perform the administrator's functions with the objective specified in subsection (1)(a) unless the administrator believes either—(a)that it is not reasonably practicable to achieve that objective; or(b)that the objective specified in subsection (1)(b) would achieve a better result for the company's creditors as a whole.(4)The administrator may perform the administrator's functions with the objective specified in subsection (1)(c) only if—(a)the administrator believes that it is not reasonably practicable to achieve either of the objectives specified in subsection (1)(a) and (b); and(b)the administrator does not unnecessarily harm the interests of the creditors of the company as a whole. 6.The applicant/respondent has not shown how section 522 of the Insolvency Act was violated. Additionally, there is no indication whether the applicant has fulfilled their part of the consent to qualify for the orders they are requesting. Parties are bound by their consent unless it is proven that the consent was tainted with illegality. There is no such claim in this matter. 7.I therefore find that the application lacks merit and is dismissed with costs. DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT NYANDARUA, THIS 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2026KIARIE WAWERU KIARIEJUDGE