Njoroge v Hasham Lalji Properties Limited & another (Environment & Land Case E039 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 218 (KLR)

The court distinguished receivership from liquidation and from administration. It noted that a company in receivership retains its corporate personality and capacity to sue and be sued. It relied on Court of Appeal authority holding that leave to sue is required only where a corporation is in liquidation, and on high court authority that receivership merely restricts dealings with assets without ending the company's legal life. The court also held that a receiver-manager is distinct from an administrator, noting Section 544 of the Insolvency Act and that administrators cannot be appointed for banking institutions under Section 529.

The Defendants argued, relying on In Re Arvind Engineering Limited and Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd v Charter House Bank Ltd, that a receiver-manager is akin to an administrator and thus Section 560(1)(d) of the Insolvency Act applied. The court rejected the analogy, noting that the KCB decision predated the Insolvency Act, that under Section 529 an administrator cannot be appointed for banking institutions, and that under Section 544 an administrator cannot be appointed while an administrative receiver is in office, showing the offices are distinct.