Kipkenei & Company Advocates v Pineapples Edge Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case 11 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 2458 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered a company director to be questioned under oath about the company's assets after it failed to pay a Ksh. 27.8 million decree.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the director of the judgment-debtor company should be orally examined under Order 22 Rule 35
Yes. The Applicant has a valid decree for taxed costs of Ksh. 27.8M and the company claims to have no assets; the examination is warranted as a discovery tool.
Order 22 Rule 35 provides a vital discovery mechanism in aid of execution so that a judgment does not remain a paper decree. The discretion is to be exercised judiciously but does not require proof of fraud; only an unsatisfied money decree and difficulty tracing assets. Courts must be proactive rather than passive where a decree-holder cannot enjoy the fruits of judgment. A debtor's assertion of insolvency must be tested under oath through examination of its officers and scrutiny of its books.
Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to lift the corporate veil
Yes, where the decree is land-related: the ELC has the status of the High Court and inherent power to execute its own orders, including implied ancillary power to pierce the veil where the company is used to frustrate a land-related decree.
Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act gives the ELC the status of the High Court and inherent power to execute its own orders. Paragraph 10 of the Advocates' Remuneration Order and Section 51 of the Advocates Act make a Certificate of Costs final and executable as a decree, and Order 22 Rule 28 extends execution rules to orders. Since the debt arose from a land matter, the ELC is the parent court; were it unable to pierce the veil, perpetrators of land fraud could hide behind shell companies, rendering the ELC a lesser court, which would be unconstitutional.
Whether the director should immediately be held personally liable for the company's debt
No - not at this stage. That prayer is stayed pending the outcome of the oral examination, so the personal-liability question awaits the evidence elicited.
Although the court found the ELC could in appropriate cases pierce the corporate veil during execution where directors use the shell to defraud creditors or conceal wealth in family companies, it chose not to impose personal liability immediately. Instead it exercised discretion to stay the lifting-the-veil prayer pending the examination, treating examination as the first step whose outcome would determine whether personal liability could follow.
Legal principles established
#- The threshold for an examination under Order 22 Rule 35 is not proof of fraud but simply the existence of an unsatisfied money decree and difficulty in tracing assets; the examination is a discovery mechanism, not punishment
- A judgment debtor's claim of having no money is the very justification for an examination order, not a defence against it; the court's power to compel a director to give the information is available where a decree remains unsatisfied
- A certificate of taxed costs issued by the Deputy Registrar of the Environment and Land Court is executable as a decree of that court, giving the ELC jurisdiction over enforcement including Order 22 Rule 35 examination
- If a company is used as a cloak for fraud or to frustrate execution of a land-related decree, the Environment and Land Court, having the same status as the High Court, can and should pierce the corporate veil
Court orders
#- 1.The Director of the Respondent, Hellen Kimooi Kiplagat, is ordered to attend Court to be orally examined on oath regarding the Respondent's property, means, and any debts owing to it
- 2.The Court shall exercise its discretion to stay the specific prayer to hold the Director personally liable (the lifting of the corporate veil) pending the outcome of the oral examination
- 3.The Applicant is granted costs of the application dated 23rd January, 2026
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act (ELC of equal status to the High Court with power to enforce its own orders), read with Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution, Order 22 Rules 28 and 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections 51 of the Advocates Act and the Advocates' Remuneration Order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kipkenei & Company Advocates v Pineapples Edge Limited (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case 11 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 2458 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 23rd January, 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2458/eng@2026-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.