[2021] KEHC 7344 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 7344 (KLR)

The court held that the presence of prayer (f) in the plaint, which seeks the lifting of the 2nd Defendant's veil of incorporation and investigation of company affairs under Section 787 of the Companies Act, 2015, vests exclusive jurisdiction in the High Court. The Magistrate's Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 7344 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Malplast Industries Limited; Defendant: Abdi Kani Omar; Defendant: Ablun East Africa Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case E511 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Transfer Case to Magistrate's Court
Outcome
Defendant's application to transfer the case to the Magistrate's Court struck out; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Courts, Lifting Corporate Veil, Company Investigations
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Jurisdiction of Courts Lifting Corporate Veil Company Investigations

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malplast Industries Limited

Plaintiff

Abdi Kani Omar

Defendant

Ablun East Africa Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Transfer Case to Magistrate's Court

  1. 1 Whether the High Court or Magistrate's Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit in light of prayer (f) in the plaint.
  2. 2 Whether the application to transfer the case to the Magistrate's Court is merited.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the presence of prayer (f) in the plaint, which seeks the lifting of the 2nd Defendant's veil of incorporation and investigation of company affairs under Section 787 of the Companies Act, 2015, vests exclusive jurisdiction in the High Court. The Magistrate's Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such matters, regardless of any pecuniary claims. The application by the Defendant to transfer the case to the Magistrate's Court was therefore an abuse of process and intended to delay proceedings. The court exercised its inherent powers to strike out the application to ensure the expeditious resolution of the dispute.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application to transfer the case to the Magistrate's Court struck out; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The defendant's Notice of Motion dated 8/3/2021 is struck out.
  • No orders as to costs.