https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6925

In re Cytonn High Yield Solutions (Insolvency Petition E063 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 6925 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (22 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6925 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts) Commercial and Tax Insolvency Petition E063 of 2021 FG Mugambi, J May 22, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF CYTTON HIGH YIELDS SOLUTIONS (IN LIQUIDATION) Between Cytonn High Yield Solutions LLP Petitioner and Pastor Ephrahim Karangi Applicant and The Official Receiver Respondent and Peter Maina Wachira Applicant (On the applications dated 9th July 2025, 10th July 2025 and 15th July 2025) Ruling 1.For determination are three applications dated 9th July 2025 (the first application), 10th July 2025 (the second application) and 15th July 2025 (the third application). The first application filed by Pastor Ephraim Karangi seeks the removal of the Official Receiver as liquidator of Cytonn High Yield Solutions (CHYS) (in liquidation) and appointment of Tom Ouma Mungai or any other insolvency practitioner in place of the Official Receiver. This application is supported by the affidavit of Pastor Ephraim Karangi sworn on even date and is opposed by the Official Receiver. 2.The second application, filed by Peter Maina Wachira, seeks an order compelling the Official Receiver to furnish a comprehensive breakdown, together with supporting documentation, of all rent and service charges collected from tenants and homeowners at The Alma by Muigai Commercial Agencies Limited. The information requested includes total collections, payments made toward essential services, any outstanding obligations, and all related financial records for the period between 4th February 2025 and 4th June 2025. 3.Further, the applicant prays that the Official Receiver be directed to provide the aforesaid information and records within seven (7) days of service of this order. 4.The application is supported by the affidavit of Peter Maina Wachira sworn on 10th July 2025. It opposed by way of the Replying Affidavit of Mark Gakuru sworn on 29th September 2025. 5.The third application was also brought by Pastor Ephraim Karangi. In it, he seeks an order compelling the Official Receiver to produce a series of documents and disclosures. Specifically, he seeks details of the procurement processes, approvals, and supporting documentation that led to the appointment of Deloitte, Muigai Commercial Agencies, EK Security Services and any other service providers engaged in the liquidation of Cytonn High Yield Solutions LLP (CHYS). He further seeks a detailed schedule of payments made to these service providers, including the amounts disbursed, any outstanding commitments, and the justification for such payments. 6.The application also calls for a comprehensive account of all monies received from SBM Bank (Kenya) Limited, together with an explanation of how those funds were applied and any agreements entered into with SBM Bank or other parties. In addition, the applicant seeks full disclosure of the transactional dealings between the Official Receiver and Superior Homes Kenya Limited. This includes the purported sale of a 12.5% shareholding in Superior Homes Kenya at Kshs. 250 million, any deposits or consideration received, and an explanation as to why the shares were sold at what he describes as a gross undervalue compared to their approximate market value of Kshs. 1 billion. 7.The applicant prays that, unless the Official Receiver produces satisfactory documentation, the Court should issue a conservatory order suspending any further provision of services by Deloitte, Muigai Commercial Agencies, EK Security Services, or any other service providers engaged contrary to procurement law or court orders. He also seeks that the Official Receiver be directed to show cause why he should not be personally surcharged or held accountable for any loss, waste, or mismanagement of CHYS’s preserved assets, including improperly procured services and unauthorized dealings. 8.Finally, the applicant seeks that, in the event of failure or neglect by the Official Receiver to provide the required documents within the prescribed period, the Court removes the Official Receiver as the liquidator of CHYS forthwith, citing conflict of interest, lack of transparency, breach of fiduciary duty, and conduct prejudicial to creditors. He also seeks that the purported Creditors’ Committee appointed by the Official Receiver be disbanded, on the grounds that it was handpicked without a fair and transparent process and is therefore unrepresentative of the body of creditors. Analysis and Determination Leave to prosecute the applications: 9.Having regard to the nature of the prayers sought by the applicants, and mindful of the directions issued by this Court on 27th September 2024, intended to ensure that only matters incapable of resolution through the liquidator are placed before the Court, I consider it proper to grant leave for the applications to be prosecuted. 10.Having considered the pleadings as well as the written submissions on record and filed as at the time of writing this Ruling, the following are the consolidated issues arising from the applications:i.Whether Peter Maina Wachira has any standing to file the application and seek the prayers sought;ii.Whether the Official Receiver should account for monies collected from The Alma by Muigai Commercial Agencies Limited;iii.Whether the Official Receiver should be removed from acting as liquidator of CHYS (in liquidation) and replaced with Tom Ouma Mungai or any other qualified insolvency practitioner;iv.Whether the Official Receiver as liquidator of CHYS should be compelled to account for services procured and payments including those of Deloitte, Muigai Commercial Agencies, EK Security Services, and any other service providers engaged in the liquidation of CHYS and monies received from SBM as well as transactional details with Superior Homes;v.Whether the Official Receiver should be surcharged for waste, loss or mismanagement or removed from office; andvi.Whether the Creditors Committee should be disbanded. i. Whether Peter Maina Wachira has any standing to file the application and seek the prayers sought: 11.In his supporting affidavit to the application dated 10th July 2025 the intended interested party describes himself as a bona fide purchaser of unit J-805 at the Alma development project located on L.R. No. Kiambaa/Ruaka/6667 and the duly appointed Chairman of the Alma Homeowners’ Committee. 12.The Official Receiver, however, challenges this assertion and argues that the intended interested party, is a stranger to these proceedings as he is neither a creditor of CHYS/CPN nor a homeowner of the suit property herein known as The Alma. While the intended interested party alleges to be a bona fide purchaser of Unit H-805, he has failed to attach any documents in the instant application substantiating his claim. Additionally, no documents/ evidence has been filed with the Official Receiver as the liquidator proving as such. Consequently, the Official Receiver contends that the intended interested party lacks locus to institute these proceedings and the information requested thereof is only available to legitimate creditors and this Honourable Court. 13.The categories of persons with a legal standing to bring an application before the Court are as spelt out in Section 464(4) of the Insolvency Act in the following terms:“In a liquidation ordered by the Court, the exercise of the powers conferred by this section by the liquidator is subject to the control of the Court, and any creditor or contributory may apply to the Court with respect to any exercise or proposed exercise of any of those powers.” 14.Nevertheless, Section 425(1)(b) of the Act broadens the definition of “creditor” to include contingent or prospective creditors. In this case there is evidence admittedly filed and produced by the Official Receiver that the applicant herein is the Chairperson of the homeowners committee of The Alma. In the circumstances, while I note that the intended interested party may not have presented his evidence of ownership before the Official Receiver, his capacity as chairperson in not controverted. 15.The applicant’s position within the homeowners’ committee indicates that he is not merely acting in an individual capacity but may, in certain circumstances, represent collective interests. These collective interests could intersect with, or even affect, the rights of creditors and contributories in the present proceedings. On that basis, I am satisfied that he has sufficient standing to be admitted as an interested party further considering the provision of Section 425(1)(b). 16.For the avoidance of doubt, this admission is limited in that scope. While he may participate as an interested party, his entitlement to rank alongside other creditors for purposes of payment is conditional on establishing proof of debt in accordance with the applicable insolvency procedures. Only upon such proof being furnished will he be admitted to share in distributions pari passu with the other creditors. ii. Whether the Official Receiver should account for monies collected from The Alma by Muigai Commercial Agencies Limited: 17.The applicant contends that on 4th February 2025, the Official Receiver unlawfully evicted the duly appointed Alma Apartments Management Company Ltd. from managing the Alma and appointed Muigai Commercial Agents Limited in its place. Muigai Commercial Agents Limited then redirected rent and service charge payments to alternative accounts at SBM Bank (Kenya) Limited, allegedly to service the developer’s loan. 18.On 4th June 2025, the management reverted to the homeowners’ association, and the Official Receiver together with Muigai Commercial Agents Limited exited the premises. However, it later emerged that during their tenure, substantial funds had been collected but essential services remained unpaid, leaving residents disadvantaged. 19.Under paragraph 13 of the Third Schedule to the Insolvency Act, a liquidator is expressly empowered to appoint an agent to carry out any business that the liquidator is unable to perform personally. This delegation of authority may be exercised without the prior approval of either the creditors or the Court, as provided under Section 464(1)(b). Nevertheless, the liquidator’s role in liquidation proceedings remains fundamentally fiduciary in nature. This means that even when acting through agents, the liquidator bears a continuing responsibility to render proper accounts, make returns, and ensure transparency in the administration of the estate. 20.Further, Section 466 of the Insolvency Act preserves the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court, empowering it to issue appropriate orders where necessary to safeguard the interests of creditors, contributories, and the integrity of the liquidation process. 21.The Official Receiver has confirmed, through several communications, the appointment of Muigai Commercial Agencies as managing agents of The Alma. Specifically, reference is made to a letter dated 4th February 2025 titled: “Appointment of Managing Agent for Title No. Kiambaa/Ruaka/6667 – The Alma, Ruaka Town” authored by Mark Gakuru, a communication dated 26th February 2025 and a letter dated 3rd March 2025 signed by James Muigai. Taken together, these documents establish that Muigai Commercial Agencies did in fact assume management responsibilities over the Alma for a period of time. 22.The applicant has further produced evidence pointing to issues allegedly arising under this management. This includes documentation of unsettled electricity and water bills, as well as a letter dated 26th June 2025 demanding a breakdown of rent and service charges collected at the Alma by Muigai Commercial Agencies. 23.I observe that no account of the monies in question has been rendered by the Official Receiver, nor has any such account been provided in the response to the present application. The applicant, together with the homeowners, is entitled to receive a proper report in this regard. As to the legality of the takeover by the Official Receiver, I have already pronounced myself on this issue and affirmed that it must be understood within the framework of the Insolvency Act. 24.For the avoidance of doubt, I reiterate and maintain the following position:“once preservation and vesting orders had been issued, as in this case over The Alma, the Official Receiver as liquidator became the sole lawful custodian of the suit property. The statutory scheme under Sections 444 and 445 of the Act vested exclusive control in the liquidator, and extinguished any competing claims to management or possession of the Alma. This deliberate centralization of authority is designed to uphold the principle of pari passu distribution and maintain transparency in the liquidation process. The Insolvency Act further requires the liquidator to account for all monies received, as a means of safeguarding creditors’ rights. Accordingly, any directive purporting to reassign management powers to a homeowners’ committee or other entity is ultra vires, unlawful, and void ab initio.” iii. Whether the Official Receiver should be removed from acting as liquidator of CHYS (in liquidation) and replaced with Tom Ouma Mungai or any other qualified insolvency practitioner: 25.The applicant levels serious allegations against the Official Receiver, namely gross conflict of interest, mismanagement, and dereliction of statutory duty in the handling of the Alma and related estates under liquidation. At the core of these accusations is the consent entered on 1st August 2023 with SBM Bank Kenya Limited. The applicant contends that this consent unfairly elevated the secured creditor’s position, to the detriment of unsecured creditors. In particular, by directing rental income exclusively towards repayment of SBM Bank’s debt of KES 750,738,625.05 (together with accruing interest, costs, and expenses), the Official Receiver is said to have contravened the statutory hierarchy of payments and thereby diminished the pool available for distribution to unsecured creditors. 26.The applicant further argues that the failure to negotiate a waiver or reduction of interest during the preservation period aggravated this prejudice, as it allowed the debt to continue compounding while unsecured creditors remained excluded from any meaningful participation in the distribution of estate assets. 27.The applicant also highlights the Receiver’s unilateral borrowing of funds from SBM Bank without creditor approval, allegedly to pay police officers stationed at the Alma. This action, taken in contravention of Section 4(2) of the Third Schedule and Section 708(1) and (2) of the Insolvency Act, is described as ultra vires and as exposing the insolvent estate to unnecessary financial obligations. 28.Beyond financial impropriety, the Official Receiver is accused of gross mismanagement across multiple other properties, including Kilimani, and Taraji Heights, where looting, bribery, and corruption have been reported. In Superior Homes, the Official Receiver is faulted for lack of transparency, having failed to provide creditors with updates, valuation reports, or meaningful information regarding the purported sale of assets, despite repeated requests. 29.The applicant further contends that the Official Receiver has abdicated core duties under Section 432(2) of the Insolvency Act by permitting multiple legal proceedings against the entities under liquidation to proceed unchecked. This passivity has led to unnecessary litigation costs, draining resources meant for creditors. Additionally, the Official Receiver is accused of failing to process or respond to creditor claims, failing to provide financial accounts or reports to creditors or the Court, failing to convene creditors’ meetings, and manipulating the composition of creditors’ committees by handpicking sympathetic members. Allegations of forgery of meeting minutes and bias against dissenting creditors underscore the applicant’s claim of systemic misconduct. 30.In the Replying Affidavit sworn by Mark Gakuru on 16th October 2025, the Official Receiver opposed the application and argued that the applicant had not established sufficient cause to warrant the drastic measure of removing the Official Receiver as liquidator and replacing the Office with a nominee of an individual creditor. 31.The Official Receiver maintained that the consent entered into on 1st August 2023 with SBM Bank Kenya Limited had been approved by the creditors’ committee and was intended to safeguard the interests of unsecured creditors. The arrangement ensured that once SBM Bank, as the secured creditor, had been paid its outstanding loan, any surplus funds would have been remitted to the Official Receiver for distribution to unsecured creditors. The Official Receiver emphasized that the applicant’s interests did not rank above those of SBM Bank, whose secured status was recognized under the Insolvency Act. 32.The Official Receiver also denied all allegations of mismanagement, corruption, and partiality, describing them as unsubstantiated and unfounded. He asserted that the Office had acted within its statutory mandate and had consistently sought to protect the estate and its creditors. With respect to Superior Homes, the Official Receiver confirmed that a creditors’ meeting had been convened on 18th July 2025, during which a resolution had been passed to have the shares valued by Deloitte, followed by a subsequent sale of the shares. This, he argued, demonstrated transparency and creditor participation in the process, contrary to the applicant’s claims of secrecy or mismanagement. 33.Section 468 of the Insolvency Act governs the removal of a court‑appointed liquidator. Under subsection (2), such removal may only occur either by way of a court order or through a general meeting of creditors convened specifically for that purpose. No evidence has been presented that any such meeting has been convened. While the Act does not enumerate specific grounds for removal, Section 416(2) provides that removal may occur “on cause shown,” in which case the Court may appoint another liquidator. 34.In considering the broad activities complained of, it is necessary to underscore the statutory framework. Under Section 14 of the Third Schedule to the Insolvency Act, a liquidator is vested with wide authority to undertake any actions necessary to secure the beneficial liquidation of the company. This statutory empowerment is significant because it permits the liquidator to act independently, without requiring prior approval from creditors, in any form of liquidation. The rationale behind this provision is to ensure that the liquidator can respond swiftly and effectively to circumstances that may arise during the liquidation process, thereby avoiding delays that could prejudice the estate. 35.At the same time, this authority is not unfettered. The guiding principle is that the liquidator’s actions must be reasonably justifiable as advancing the beneficial outcome of the liquidation. So long as the steps taken can be demonstrated to serve the overarching objective of a fair, transparent, and efficient liquidation, they fall within the scope of the statutory mandate. 36.Jurisprudence makes it clear that the removal of a liquidator is a drastic and exceptional remedy. Courts have consistently emphasized that such an order should only be granted upon clear and convincing evidence of misconduct, incapacity, conflict of interest, or breach of statutory duty. Mere dissatisfaction with the manner in which the liquidator has exercised discretion, or disagreement with commercial decisions taken in good faith, does not suffice. 37.It must be remembered that the liquidator is an officer of the Court. Unless it is demonstrated that his conduct undermines the integrity of the liquidation process or prejudices the collective interests of creditors, the Court must exercise restraint and be slow to interfere with the discharge of his statutory mandate. 38.This position was affirmed in Re Kenyon Limited (Under Liquidation), [2022] KEHC 13753 (KLR), where Mabeya J observed that:“Inaction on the part of the liquidator jeopardizes the position of the company and the creditors. The law does not envisage a situation where a liquidator assumes office and secretly deals with the company without any accountability. Liquidation does not confer ownership rights to the liquidator to deal with the company as he so wishes. The liquidator is conferred powers to ensure that the company pays its debts and ceases to exist. Anything to the contrary justifies removal from office. …” 39.At the same time, the Court cautioned that:“Removal from office is a draconian step, and the court ought to exercise its discretion judiciously before granting such orders.” 40.Similarly, in the South African case of Standard Bank V The Master of the High Court, (103/09) (2010) ZASCA 4, the Court emphasized that failure of a liquidator to discharge rudimentary functions such as keeping proper books of account would justify removal. The Court pronounced itself as follows:“In my view, like Caesar’s wife, liquidators should be beyond reproach. In this case their counsel conceded before us that their conduct was not. It ought to have been, given the fiduciary position occupied by them. What remains therefore is to determine whether they have conducted themselves such as to warrant their removal from office…they failed in the discharge of a most rudimentary function for liquidators, namely the keeping of proper books of account. Given the obligation imposed upon them to do so, that dereliction should not be countenanced. …” 41.Applying these principles to the matter before me, it is clear that the threshold for removal requires more than allegations or unsubstantiated claims. It demands proof of substantial cause which the applicant bears the burden of proving. 42.With respect to the allegations surrounding the consent entered with SBM Bank on 1st August 2023, and in particular the claim of bias in favour of the Bank, it must be emphasized that the law itself recognizes the priority of secured creditors. By virtue of a valid Charge, secured creditors rank above unsecured creditors, and that priority is a statutory consequence rather than a creation of the Official Receiver. It is this legal framework that informed the consent in question. 43.Importantly, the consent expressly stipulated that SBM Bank would keep the Official Receiver apprised of every step taken in realizing the suit property. In my view, this requirement was intended to ensure oversight by the Official Receiver and to promote transparency in the process, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the liquidation proceedings. 44.The fact that negotiations between SBM Bank and the Official Receiver did not secure a waiver of interest on the loan cannot be attributed as a fault of the Official Receiver. The Bank, acting within its commercial rights, was entitled to insist on the contractual interest on the facility. Similarly, the decision whether to finance the completion of the Alma project was a matter of commercial discretion for the Bank, not the Official Receiver. 45.Crucially, the consent recognized and safeguarded the position of unsecured creditors by expressly providing that, once SBM Bank had recovered its loan, any surplus funds would be remitted to the Official Receiver for distribution. This arrangement reflected both good faith and adherence to the statutory hierarchy of claims, ensuring that unsecured creditors were not excluded from eventual participation in the liquidation proceeds. 46.The allegation of inadequate information being provided to creditors is equally unconvincing. The record demonstrates that the Official Receiver has convened at least three meetings with the general body of creditors and the creditors’ committee as at the time of this Ruling. That is on 7th March 2023, 26th September 2024, and 18th July 2025. The minutes of these meetings confirm that substantive issues were addressed, including updates on creditors’ claims, the status of the special purpose vehicles (SPVs), progress of the liquidation, and resolutions concerning disposal of assets. 47.I have not been told that the applicant herein was present at any of the meetings convened by the Official Receiver, nor has it been shown that the issues he now raises were first presented before the creditors’ committee for discussion or subjected to a vote. This omission is significant. 48.The Insolvency Act is deliberately structured around the convening of creditors’ meetings, and this design is neither incidental nor perfunctory. It reflects a legislative recognition that creditors, as the primary stakeholders in a liquidation, must be afforded a formal and organized forum to exercise their collective rights. These meetings serve as the statutory mechanism through which creditors can interrogate the conduct of the liquidation, demand accountability, and influence its direction by passing resolutions. The emphasis on creditors’ meetings also underscores the principle that insolvency is not merely a legal proceeding but a collective economic process, where the voice of creditors must be heard and respected. 49.Equally important is the recognition that matters properly reserved for creditors’ meetings should not be prematurely escalated to the Court. To do so would undermine the statutory balance carefully struck by the Act. The Court’s role is supervisory, not managerial. It intervenes only where statutory obligations are breached, where misconduct arises, or where the integrity of the process is imperiled. It is not designed to adjudicate every operational decision or routine dispute that creditors themselves are empowered to resolve. 50.By vesting day-to-day control in creditors, acting through meetings or committees, the Act promotes efficiency, reduces unnecessary judicial intervention, and reinforces accountability within the creditor body itself. This allocation of responsibility ensures that liquidation remains both practical and principled. Practical, because decisions are made by those with the greatest financial stake and principled, because the Court stands as a safeguard against abuse, rather than a substitute for creditor governance. 51.Against the backdrop of the record presented before me, the contention that creditors were kept in the dark is unsustainable. The failure by the applicant to attend and raise his concerns in the proper forum where they could be debated and subjected to a vote cannot be converted into a ground for removal of the Official Receiver as Liquidator. 52.The allegations of handpicking committee members by the Official Receiver are equally contradicted by the minutes of the first creditors’ meeting, which clearly show that the composition of the committees was determined by the creditors themselves through a voting process. The recorded outcomes demonstrate that creditors exercised their choice between three options: adopting the existing committee from the administration, electing a new committee upon liquidation, or forming a hybrid of existing and new members. 53.Accordingly, I find no basis whatsoever for disbanding the creditors’ committee. On the contrary, the record affirms that the committee was constituted through a legitimate vote of creditors, and its authority flows directly from that process. It is, therefore, important to reproduce Minute 4 of the meeting held on 7th March 2025 verbatim, as it captures the essence of the creditors’ decision-making and conclusively rebuts the allegation of handpicking.“Minute 4:Voting for Creditors CommitteesGiven the number of the Creditors, the OR staff informed the Creditors that per the provisions of the Insolvency Act, a Creditors’ Committee would have to be formed for each of the partnerships for ease of communication dissemination from the or to the rest of the Creditors. The Creditors voted as follows:To adopt the existing Committee 317/721 (44%)To elect new committee 75/721 (10%)To form a hybrid of existing and new committee members 145/721 (27%)No answer 137/721 (19%)The Creditors’ Committees voted in consisted of;For CPNWill ShawnMoses Edwin OwuorPatrick WanjauDr. Anne MainaJon Bosco MathekaFor CHYSSteven GakuoMartha WaweruMichael MutuaElizabeth WanjiruJoel Jamenya.” 54.The insinuation that the minutes of the creditors’ meeting were fabricated is a grave allegation, yet it has been advanced without a shred of supporting evidence. Such a claim, made in the abstract, cannot assist the applicant’s case. The Court is bound to adjudicate on the basis of the documentary record and credible proof, not on speculation or conjecture. Bare assertions, however emphatically stated, cannot displace the presumption of regularity that attaches to official records. 55.Equally unsubstantiated is the grave allegation of bribery and corruption in the handling of the SPVs properties. The applicant has not provided any credible evidence to support this claim. The cooperation between SBM Bank and the Official Receiver in providing security at the Alma cannot, in itself, be construed as bias. Both parties had and still have a legitimate and shared interest in safeguarding the property against vandalism and ensuring continuity of management. The only reasonable expectation in this regard is that the Official Receiver should provide a detailed account to the Court and to creditors of any monies received from SBM Bank and how those funds were applied. Transparency in financial reporting is the appropriate safeguard, not removal from office. 56.The applicant also raised concerns regarding alleged lack of transparency in the valuation of Superior Homes shares. However, the record shows that the Official Receiver provided updates to the general body of creditors and the creditors’ committee on the status of valuation and disposal of those shares. Further, correspondence has been produced showing that Companies including KPMG, Ernst & Young LLP, Bakertilly, Deloitte, and PwC were invited to submit quotations for an independent valuation of the 12.5% shareholding in Superior Homes Kenya PLC. 57.Indeed, the status of the valuation and the intention to dispose of the shares was acknowledged by Edwin Dande himself in an email dated 30th June 2025. The fact that the Official Receiver did not adopt the suggestions from Cytonn’s leadership cannot be a ground for removal. The Receiver is mandated to act independently and in the collective interest of creditors, not at the behest of one stakeholder. 58.The applicant’s contention that the Official Receiver abdicated the core duties under Section 432(2) of the Insolvency Act by permitting multiple legal proceedings to proceed unchecked must also be considered against the evidentiary record. While it is true that litigation can drain resources meant for creditors, the mere existence of suits against the entities under liquidation does not, without more, establish abdication of duty. The law requires proof that the liquidator failed to take reasonable steps to manage or mitigate such proceedings. 59.In this case, no sufficient evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the Official Receiver deliberately permitted litigation to proceed unchecked or failed to discharge statutory duties. Delays and costs associated with litigation are often inherent in insolvency processes and cannot, without substantiation, be attributed to abdication of duty. 60.Finally, the issue of proof of debt has been raised repeatedly before this Court. While the applicant’s frustration over the delays in receiving a response on the same is understandable, the evidence shows that the Official Receiver is not solely responsible for this delay. It is on record that some creditors had failed to furnish proper documentation or delayed in presenting their proofs of debt, thereby contributing to the slow progress. Such delays, which are attributable in part to creditors themselves, cannot justify the drastic remedy of removing the Official Receiver. 61.In conclusion, the allegations advanced by the applicant do not meet the high threshold required under Sections 416(2) and 468 of the Insolvency Act for removal of a liquidator. While frustrations by creditors over delays or commercial outcomes are understandable, they cannot substitute for proof of misconduct, bias, or abdication of duty. Having so found, it follows that the issue as to whether the Official Receiver should be surcharged for waste, loss or mismanagement fails. Disposition and Final Orders 62.Accordingly,1.The first application dated 9th July 2025 seeking removal of the Official Receiver is dismissed.2.The second application dated 10th July 2025 allowed in part. The Official Receiver shall furnish a comprehensive account of the total collections and payments made toward essential services, any outstanding obligations, and all related financial records relating to the Alma for the period between 4th February 2025 and 4th June 2025, within 45 days. The account shall be filed in Court, served upon the applicant, and shared with the general body of creditors for deliberation at the next creditors’ meeting.3.The third application, dated 15th July 2025, is allowed in part:i.The Official Receiver shall, within 45 days, prepare and file a detailed report and account of the procurement processes undertaken, the payments and outstanding commitments made to Deloitte, Muigai Commercial Agencies, EK Security Services, and any other service providers engaged in the liquidation of CHYS together with the justification for such payments.ii.The Official Receiver shall, within the same period, prepare and file a separate account of all monies received from SBM Bank.iii.Both reports shall be filed in Court, served upon the applicant, and shared with the general body of creditors for deliberation at the next creditors’ meeting.iv.Save for the prayers expressly granted, all other prayers are dismissed.v.Given the mixed outcome of the applications, costs shall be in the cause. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN NAIROBI THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 2026.F. MUGAMBIJUDGE