[2020] KEHC 2 (KLR)
The court found that the application was unopposed and that the plaintiff had demonstrated unsuccessful attempts to execute the decree against the defendant company. The absence of opposition and the inability to trace the defendant’s assets justified granting the orders sought. The court held that, in the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 2 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Isamu Refri-Electricals; Defendant: Netplan East Africa Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 473 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Examination of Judgment Debtor and Lifting of Corporate Veil
- Outcome
- Application allowed as prayed with costs to the applicant.
- Judges
- WA Okwany
- Legal Topics
- Judgment Debtor Examination, Lifting Corporate Veil, Execution of Decree
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Isamu Refri-Electricals
Plaintiff
Netplan East Africa Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Examination of Judgment Debtor and Lifting of Corporate Veil
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the managing director of the defendant company should be summoned for examination on the company’s ability to pay the decretal sum.
- 2 Whether the court should grant leave to lift the corporate veil and order the managing director to personally settle the decretal sum.
- 3 Whether the application is merited in the absence of opposition from the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application was unopposed and that the plaintiff had demonstrated unsuccessful attempts to execute the decree against the defendant company. The absence of opposition and the inability to trace the defendant’s assets justified granting the orders sought. The court held that, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to allow the application for the examination of the managing director and, in the alternative, to grant leave for the lifting of the corporate veil, thereby enabling the plaintiff to pursue recovery of the decretal sum from the managing director personally. The court emphasized that the interests of justice and fairness required intervention to prevent...
Court Disposition
Application allowed as prayed with costs to the applicant.
Orders
- Andrew Ayes, Managing Director of the defendant, to be summoned for examination on the judgment debtor’s ability to pay the decretal sum, costs, and interest.
- Leave granted to allow the lifting of the corporate veil and to order Andrew Ayes to personally settle the sum of Kshs 3,373,074 if necessary.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Refri-Electricals v Netplan East Africa Limited (Civil Case 473 of 2011) [2020] KEHC 2 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (28 October 2020) (Ruling)
Neutral citation number: [2020] KEHC 2 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts Commercial and Tax Division)
Civil Case 473 of 2011
WA Okwany, J
October 28, 2020
Between
Isamu Refri-Electricals
Plaintiff
and
Netplan East Africa Limited
Defendant
Ruling
1. The applicant seeks the following orders in the application dated 6th September 2019: -1. That Andrew Ayes, being the Managing Director of the defendant (judgment debtor) herein be summoned to attend this court for examination on the judgment debtor’s ability to pay the decretal sum, costs and interest in this case.2. That in the alternative this court in the interest of justice and fairness be pleased to grant leave to allow the lifting of the corporate veil and order Andrew Ayes, as the Managing Director of the defendant company to personally settle the sum of Kshs 3,373,074/- being the decretal sum of costs.3. That costs of this application be provided for.
2. The application is supported by the applicant’s advocate’s affidavit and is premised on the grounds that: -1. The plaintiff is the decree-holder of the sum of Kshs 3,109,817. 40/=plus costs of Kshs 263,257/-.2. The decree holder has been unsuccessful in executing the decree issued by this Honourable court against the judgment debtor as it has been unable to trace any of the judgment debtor’s assets.3. The defendant’s interest herein stands to suffer prejudice if the application is not granted.4. The plaintiff believes that the said director has concealed and/or hidden the assets of the Debtor in a deliberate effort to defeat the plaintiff from recovering the debt.
3. A perusal of the court file indicated that the respondent did not oppose the application despite service with the same.
4. I therefore find that the application is unopposed.
5. I further find that the application is merited in view of the fact that the defendant has not settled the decretal sum.
6. I therefore allow the application as prayed with costs to the applicant.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS AT NAIROBI THIS 28THDAY OF OCTOBER 2020 IN VIEW OF THE DECLARATION OF MEASURES RESTRICTING COURT OPERATIONS DUE TO COVED -19 PANDEMIC AND IN LIGHT OF THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY HIS LORDSHIP, THE CHIEF JUSTICE ON THE 17THAPRIL 2020. W. A. OKWANYJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr. Kamau for Mungai for plaintiff.No appearance for defendantCourt Assistant: Margaret