https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12078

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MALINDI** **BANKRUPTCY CAUSE NO. 1 OF 2010** **ZAKI ABDULRAHMAN SAID.............................................................................. 1ST CREDITOR** **ABUBAKAR A. H. MOHAMED.............................................................................2ND CREDITOR** **AMOSA K. LIMITED…………..............................................................................3RD CREDITOR** **AND** **TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF AHMED MOHAMED SAID ………………APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **AHMED MOHAMED SAID.......................................................BANKRUPT/1ST RESPONDENT** **OCS MALINDI POLICE STATION......................................................2ND RESPONDENT RICHARD OTARA T/A RICHARD O. & CO. ADVOCATES .................... 3RD RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. This is a 16 year old matter. There have been multiple rulings delivered by this Court. The record shows that the Applicant who is also the 2nd Creditor herein entered into an agreement dated 18.12.13 with Ahmed Mohamed Said, the Bankrupt for the payment of Kshs. 600,000/= owed to him. The Applicant was paid Kshs. 450,000/= directly and the balance of Kshs. 150,000/= was paid v*ide* a banker’s cheque dated 2.8.17 through the Deputy Registrar of this Court. The amount due to the Applicant was thus fully settled. 2. In spite of the settlement of the debt, the Applicant obtained warrants of seizure of the Bankrupt’s property. By a ruling of 9.5.25, the Court discharged and set aside the warrants of seizure, noting that there was no justification for the same as the amount due to the Applicant had been settled in full. 3. The Applicant has returned to this Court as “trustee of the property of the Bankrupt, by a Notice of Motion dated 6.11.24 seeking: 4. ***Spent.*** 5. ***That the Criminal acts and omissions committed by the Respondents individually and jointly be acted upon as per the law;*** 6. ***THAT the Court to find the Respondents jointly and severally to be guilty of violating the law, lying and misleading the Court, forging of documents and signatures, creating false objectors or owners of the Bankrupt's properties and bribery of Judges;*** 7. ***THAT a warrant of seizure be issued in favour of the Applicant and security be issued by the Police of Kenya to seize the property of the bankrupt in his capacity as Trustee to recover the debts owed;*** 8. ***THAT the Law Society of Kenya to take action against Mr. Otara for professional misconduct and violation of Advocates code, rules and practice procedures;*** 9. ***THAT the Judicial Service Commission to mitigate on corruption matters in the Court's and Judiciary;*** 10. ***THAT the Parliament to reform the whole of the Judiciary and the applicable laws;*** 11. ***Costs in favour of the Trustee.*** 12. The Applicant’s case is that since his appointment as the trustee of the property of the Bankrupt on 8.6.15, he has been unable to discharge his duties due to the frustrations occasioned by the Respondents. The Applicant states that the 3rd Respondent is not properly on record to prosecute the bankruptcy proceedings since he alleges to be appointed by the Official Receiver to act for the Bankrupt, of which the appointment was denied by the Receiver. Further, that he has no locus to address the Court under Section 17(12) of the Bankruptcy Act. Further, that the 3rd Respondent has been approaching this Court under the wrong provisions of the law; Additionally, that the orders of this Court issued on 17.4.24 have extinguished by operation of law and they be vacated. The Applicant further stated that in some instances, he has not been granted a fair hearing. Further, that bankruptcy proceedings cannot proceed in the absence of the Official Receiver, trustee, insolvency practitioner or special manager. He claimed that during the mention of the Bankrupt's irregular application dated 12.4.24 through the 3rd Respondent, he was denied access to Court. The Applicant contends that the receiving orders expired hence warrant of arrest should be issued to the Bankrupt for committal to jail. He concluded by stating that it will only be fair and just for the orders sought to be issued, that the Respondents herein will not suffer any prejudice should the orders sought be granted since they are all at fault and that there has been no inordinate delay in bringing this Application. 13. None of the Respondents filed a response to the Application. 14. It is noted that the matter between the Applicant and the Bankrupt was concluded and there are rulings to that effect. It bears repeating that in his ruling of 23.6.17, Chitembwe, J. noted the Applicant’s conduct and stated that he “***seems to*** ***be* *enjoying his status. He has been seeking to be recognized as a trustee and not a judgment debtor. He has made several applications for appointment of trustees and thereafter applied to have the trustees removed. Equally, he has appointed advocates who served short stints in the matter and were shortly debriefed. The judgment creditor sought to be his own trustee and also appeared for himself. He has made several application (sic) in this old matter and according to my own observations, he is out to stretch the dispute to as long as he would like it to last.*** 15. In the ruling dated 9.5.25, pursuant to an application by the Bankrupt for the discharge and setting aside of the warrants of seizure obtained by the Applicant, this Court noted that the Applicant’s claim against the Bankrupt had been duly settled. The Court observed that the Applicant continued to pursue the Bankrupt and that while the Applicant opposed the Bankrupt’s application, he had not stated the amount he claimed to be due to him from the Bankrupt, to justify his opposition to the application. The Court found by opposing that application and maintaining that the consent was forged notwithstanding the ruling of 23.6.17, the Applicant was just out to endlessly vex the Bankrupt. 16. By his present Application, the Applicant still seeks to be recognized as trustee of the Bankrupt’s property. He still seeks seizure of the Bankrupt’s property to recover debts owed. The debts however remain unspecified. He has now extended his claims to the OCS Malindi Police Station and Richard Otara, Advocate, alleging that they have committed criminal acts and omissions committed by the Respondents individually and jointly and seeking that they be acted upon as per the law. The Applicant has also asked the Court to find the Respondents jointly and severally guilty of violating the law, lying and misleading the Court, forging of documents and signatures, creating false objectors or owners of the Bankrupt's properties and bribery of Judges. 17. After considering the Application and the affidavits herein, I find that this is yet another attempt by the Applicant to revive a matter that has been settled, thereby vexing the Bankrupt further. If he is aggrieved by the decisions of this Court, his remedy lies in an appeal before the Court of Appeal and not in filing endless applications before this Court. 18. On the prayer for an order that the Law Society of Kenya takes action against Mr. Otara for professional misconduct and violation of Advocates code, rules and practice procedures, the Applicant can lodge the complaint directly with the Law Society of Kenya. 1. Similarly, on the prayers for orders directed at the Judicial Service Commission to mitigate corruption matters in the Courts and Judiciary and orders directed at Parliament to reform the whole of the Judiciary and the applicable laws, the Applicant should approach these entities directly with his complaints. 2. This Court finds that the Application is an abuse of the court process. The Court has the inherent power and indeed a duty to protect itself from abuse. In this regard, I associate with Mativo, J. (as he then was) who in **Shvji Jadva Parbat 2 others v Attorney General & 3 others 2017 KEHC 8819(KLR)**, stated: ***In Agnes Muthoni Nyanjui & 2 Others vs Annah Nyambura Kioi & 3 Others[1]I observed that "It is trite law that the court has an inherent jurisdiction to protect itself from abuse or to see that its process is not abused. The black's law dictionary defines abuse as “Everything which is contrary to good order established by usage that is a complete departure from reasonable use. An abuse is done when one makes an excessive or improper use of a thing or to employ such thing in a manner contrary to the natural legal rules for its use."*** 1. In the end and for the reasons stated, the Application dated 6.11.24 lacks merit and the same is dismissed with costs to the Bankrupt whose advocate attended court for the Application. **DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED in MALINDI this 31st day of July 2026** **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** **M. THANDE** **JUDGE**