Merry Beach Limited v Attorney General & 17 others (Environment and Land Case E005 of 2011) (28 April 2026) (Directions) [2026] KEELC 2454 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Malindi court ruled that applications to enforce costs against company directors must go before the Deputy Registrar, not the judge.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the court or the Deputy Registrar has jurisdiction to hear an application for leave to execute taxed costs directly against directors of Itakey Investment Limited by lifting the corporate veil under Order 22 Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key legal issues
#Whether the judge or the Deputy Registrar is seized of jurisdiction over the application for leave to execute costs against directors under Order 22 Rule 35
The Deputy Registrar has jurisdiction; the application should not have been placed before the judge
The court examined Order 22 Rule 35, which governs notices to show cause in execution proceedings, together with Order 49 Rule 7(b)(x) conferring delegated jurisdiction on the Deputy Registrar. It concluded that the Deputy Registrar is competent to hear and determine the application, so it need not have been placed before the judge, and it directed the file to the Deputy Registrar for expeditious disposal.
Legal principles established
#- Under Order 22 Rule 35 and Order 49 Rule 7(b)(x) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the Deputy Registrar has jurisdiction to hear and determine an application for leave to execute costs against directors under a notice to show cause
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 23rd June 2025 be placed before the Deputy Registrar for hearing and final disposal, to be done expeditiously
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 22 Rule 35 and Order 49 Rule 7(b)(x) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Leave to directly execute taxed costs against the directors Antonio Braccini and Antonella Braccini by lifting the corporate veil
The court found the Deputy Registrar, not the judge, has jurisdiction to hear and determine the application under Order 22 Rule 35 and Order 49 Rule 7(b)(x)
Costs
No costs order made in the ruling; the motion had sought costs of the application but the court made no provision for them
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
I find that under those rules the Deputy Registrar has jurisdiction to hear and determine the present application, and there was no need in the first place for it to be placed before this court.
I order that the same be placed before the Deputy Registrar for hearing and final disposal, and the same shall be done expeditiously. It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#The cause header appears as 'ELC CASE NUMBER EO05 OF 2011' with party roles printed as 'PETITIONER' in the motion, suggesting the matter is styled a petition, while the cause title lists Merry Beach Limited as PLAINTIFF
The judgment text contains apparent transcription errors: 'a cooperative before dealing with its directors' and 'notice to show course' appear garbled
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Merry Beach Limited v Attorney General & 17 others (Environment and Land Case E005 of 2011) (28 April 2026) (Directions) [2026] KEELC 2454 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case Number EO05 of 2011. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2454/eng@2026-04-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.