https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1505
The court declined to write a further considered ruling on an application already addressed in prior directions and instead directed the decree-holder to serve a schedule of additional documents on the judgment debtor to facilitate examination of the company’s secretary or another willing director, with a view to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEELRC 1505 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Thierry Poussard; Judgment Debtor: Bradely Limited; 1st Respondent: Paul Muchene Kinuthia; 2nd Respondent: Gene Grand; 3rd Respondent: Guerassim Nikolov; 4th Respondent: Paul Wanderi Ndung’U; 5th Respondent: Ronald Karauri Kamwiko
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Employment and Labour Relations Cause 2465 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Employment and Labour Relations Cause / Ruling on Application Dated 27 November 2024 in Post Judgment Decree Enforcement Proceedings
- Outcome
- Application effectively managed by directions; no substantive ruling on the merits of the application was delivered.
- Judges
- ["NJ Abuodha"]
- Legal Topics
- Enforcement of Decree, Post Judgment Examination, Discovery of Company Documents, Lifting the Corporate Veil, Liability of Directors/shareholders
- 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
Thierry Poussard
Applicant
Bradely Limited
Judgment Debtor
Paul Muchene Kinuthia
1st Respondent
Gene Grand
2nd Respondent
Guerassim Nikolov
3rd Respondent
Paul Wanderi Ndung’U
4th Respondent
Ronald Karauri Kamwiko
5th Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment and Labour Relations Cause / Ruling on Application Dated 27 November 2024 in Post Judgment Decree Enforcement Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should issue a formal ruling on the application dated 27 November 2024
- 2 What documents the decree-holder is entitled to request from the judgment debtor for examination of the company’s affairs
- 3 Whether the examination should support a possible application to lift the corporate veil and hold directors/shareholders liable
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to write a further considered ruling on an application already addressed in prior directions and instead directed the decree-holder to serve a schedule of additional documents on the judgment debtor to facilitate examination of the company’s secretary or another willing director, with a view to determining whether the corporate veil should be lifted and directors/shareholders held liable.
Court Disposition
Application effectively managed by directions; no substantive ruling on the merits of the application was delivered.
Orders
- Counsel for the decree-holder to furnish the judgment debtor’s counsel with a schedule of additional documents within 14 days.
- The judgment debtor to respond within 21 days of service of the schedule.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Poussard v Bradely Limited & 5 others (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 2465 of 2017) [2026] KEELRC 1505 (KLR) (29 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1505 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Employment and Labour Relations Cause 2465 of 2017 NJ Abuodha, J May 29, 2026 Between Thierry Poussard Applicant and Bradely Limited Judgment debtor and Paul Muchene Kinuthia 1st Respondent Gene Grand 2nd Respondent Guerassim Nikolov 3rd Respondent Paul Wanderi Ndung’U 4th Respondent Ronald Karauri Kamwiko 5th Respondent Ruling 1.I have gone through the previous proceedings and directions in this matter and do not find it useful to write a considered ruling with regard to the application dated 27th November, 2024 contrary to the directions I inadvertently gave on 27th October, 2025. 2.I had on 17th October, allowed counsel for the decree holder to file a formal application in order to clearly define issues and documents the decree-holder needed from the judgment debtor to assist in inquiring into the affairs of the company for purposes of settling the decree of the court. This I felt was necessary to provide the judgment debtor with an opportunity respond and indicate if it would be possible to provide the documents requested or not. 3.I regret that around the time I gave the directions, I faced health challenges, was out of office for treatment and may not have been in my best element and also was not available to sit for a while to give further directions herein. This is an old matter and needs to be disposed of at the level of this court. It would therefore not serve useful purpose to write a formal ruling after submissions on an issue I had already given directions on. 4.In that regard, I hereby direct that Counsel for the decree holder furnishes the judgment debtors counsel with a schedule of additional documents he requires for the purposes of further examining the judgment debtor’s company’s secretary Mr. Robert Wanyoike or any other director that will be ready and willing to be examined on the affairs of the company for purposes of deciding whether or not it would be appropriate in the circumstances to lift the corporate veil and hold the directors/shareholders of the company liable for its debts. 5.Therefore, let Counsel for the decree-holder avail such schedule within 14 days from the date of this ruling and let the judgment debtor respond within 21 days of service of such schedule. Let the matter be mentioned on 30th June, 2025 for further directions. 6.It is so ordered. DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2026DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2026ABUODHA NELSON JORUMPRESIDING JUDGE-APPEALS DIVISION