[2025] KEHC 6567 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 6567 (KLR)

The court found that the application for review did not meet the threshold under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The grounds advanced by UBA, namely the collapse of the compulsory acquisition and alleged non-implementation of the CVA, were insufficient because...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 6567 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: UBA Kenya Bank Limited; Respondent: Uchumi Supermarkets PLC; Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Insolvency Petition 25 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Insolvency Petition / Ruling on Application for Review of Earlier Ruling and Leave to Exercise Statutory Power of Sale
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
F Gikonyo
Legal Topics
Insolvency Proceedings, Statutory Power of Sale, Company Voluntary Arrangement, Compulsory Acquisition, Review of Court Orders
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Insolvency Proceedings Statutory Power of Sale Company Voluntary Arrangement Compulsory Acquisition Review of Court Orders

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UBA Kenya Bank Limited

Applicant

Uchumi Supermarkets PLC

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Insolvency Petition / Ruling on Application for Review of Earlier Ruling and Leave to Exercise Statutory Power of Sale

  1. 1 Whether the application for review of the ruling dated 19th May 2022 meets the threshold for review under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether UBA Kenya Bank Limited should be granted leave to exercise its statutory power of sale over L.R. No. 209/12593.
  3. 3 Whether the application is barred by the doctrine of res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for review did not meet the threshold under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The grounds advanced by UBA, namely the collapse of the compulsory acquisition and alleged non-implementation of the CVA, were insufficient because the record showed that a revised CVA was pending adoption before the court and a consent had been reached between UBA and the company regarding the utilization of the charged property. The issue of exercising the statutory power of sale was therefore moot. The court also held that the doctrine of res judicata was inapplicable to review applications. The National Treasury's...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 29th March 2023 by UBA Kenya Bank Limited is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
  • The company, the monitor and supervisor shall, within 30 days, furnish the court and all creditors with information and details on the status of the company and its affairs, assets, income, debts, payments made so far, any funding received since the appointment of a monitor and supervisor, creditors, creditors...