Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Kenya decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Molyn Credit Limited v Odeny Maube & Co. Advocates [2025] KEHC 10506 (KLR)
The High Court allowed an application to summon a company’s directors for examination on oath over an unsatisfied decree, deferring any ruling on personal liability.
Family Bank Limited v Ceven Limited [2025] KEHC 10115 (KLR)
The court found that the Respondent's Directors breached court orders and statutory obligations by failing to produce financial records and by misappropriating company funds for personal use. The evidence showed that Andrew Gitonga and Henry Waweru, as signatories to the company's bank accounts, withdrew funds in their own names, blurring the line between the company and its Directors. The Directors failed to provide any credible explanation or documentation to rebut these allegations. The court held that the Respondent operated as a shell to receive funds from the Applicant, which were then…
Source excerpt
OMR Medikal Turkish Limited v Asterisk (K) Limited; MSM Medical Equipments Limited (Objector); Icon Auctioneers (Third party) [2025] KEHC 10662 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had established a credible basis for summoning the respondent’s directors and company secretary for oral examination and production of financial documents, as they are privy to information necessary for execution of the decree. The court held that the company secretary’s resignation after service of the application did not absolve him from being examined on matters arising during his tenure. The court further determined that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds for lifting the corporate veil, given the evidence of possible collusion and asset co…
Source excerpt
Berlin Equipment Limited v Mascor Kenya Limited [2025] KEHC 9373 (KLR)
The High Court allowed an application to summon company directors for examination on execution, but declined to lift the corporate veil before that process.
Wacira Wambugu & Company Advocates LLP v Musimba [2025] KEHC 9389 (KLR)
The court found that the delay in filing the reference was not inordinate and was reasonably explained by the respondent, as it was occasioned by the court's delay in supplying a copy of the ruling. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to grant leave to file the reference out of time. On the substantive issue, the court held that the respondent, as a director, instructed the advocates to act on behalf of his company, and under the definition of 'client' in the Advocates Act, he was properly deemed the client for purposes of the Bill of Costs. The Deputy Registrar's finding that an…
Source excerpt
Agrotech and Input Supplies Ltd v Imexia Ltd [2025] KEHC 9008 (KLR)
The High Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for execution of a decree issued by the Small Claims Court because the law requires that all questions relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree be determined by the court executing the decree. There was no evidence that the Small Claims Court, which issued the decree, had ceased to exist or lacked jurisdiction to execute its own decree. The Small Claims Court Act expressly provides for the execution of its decrees, including the examination of directors and the lifting of the corporate…
Source excerpt
Adnan & another v Mbae & 3 others [2025] KEHC 8908 (KLR)
The court held that the Applicants failed to provide sufficient evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or improper use of the corporate entity by the Respondents to justify lifting the corporate veil. The mere inability of the company to satisfy the judgment debt, or the encumbrance of its assets, does not meet the legal threshold for holding directors personally liable. The principle of separate legal personality remains paramount unless there is clear proof of fraud or misuse of the corporate structure, which was not demonstrated in this case. The application to hold the Respondents personal…
Source excerpt
China State Construction Engineering Corporation (Kenya) Limited v Libuyi (Suing as the Director of Thelmax Contractors Limited) & another; Okadenyi (Proposed Interested Party) [2025] KEHC 8539 (KLR)
The court found that the 1st Respondent, having sued in his own name as director, could not now invoke the corporate veil to shield himself from personal liability for contempt. The court distinguished prior authorities on the corporate veil, noting that in this case, the 1st Respondent voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction in his personal capacity. The court further held that both Respondents were duly served with the court order dated 6th December 2024 via recognized electronic means, and that knowledge of the order was sufficient to found liability for contempt. The Respondents…
Source excerpt
Choi v Exotic Gates Limited; Owuor (Objector) [2025] KEELC 4536 (KLR)
The court found that the law firm of Onyango Ndolo & Company Advocates did not require leave to come on record for the Objector, as the Objector was a new party in post-judgment proceedings. The failure to file a notice of objection under Order 22 Rule 51 was not fatal since the Decree Holder was made aware of the Objector's claim through the application, and no prejudice was suffered. The consent order of 7th March, 2024 was validly entered into by counsel properly on record for the Judgment Debtor, and there was no evidence of fraud, collusion, or lack of authority. The default clause in th…
Source excerpt
Kopoa Developers Limited v Endesk Properties Limited & another [2025] KEELC 4398 (KLR)
The court held that the National Environment Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction in issuing orders for a site visit and to stop construction pending determination of the appeal. The appellant was duly served, filed a replying affidavit, and was thus afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The failure to file written submissions did not amount to a denial of the right to be heard, as the opportunity was provided but not utilized. The Tribunal was entitled to rely on photographic evidence and its own observations from the site visit, as it is not bound by the strict rules of evidence.…
Source excerpt
Explore more
