Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment provided· [2026] KEELC 2598 (KLR)

Kamau & others v Thuita & others (Environment and Land Case 1584 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 2598 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
4 May 2026
CMC.G. Mbogo
1,654 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ordered company directors to personally appear and disclose their company's assets so creditors can collect a Kshs.54 million debt.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiffs/decree holders, who obtained judgment on 1st February, 2018 awarding them Kshs.25,154,000/- with interest and costs (totaling Kshs.31,751,069/- as at 21st December, 2018, and now Kshs.54,094,832.02 inclusive of interest), moved the court by notice of motion dated 13th October, 2025 under Sections 34 and 44(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 22 Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules. They sought summons compelling the current directors of the judgment debtor, Embakasi Ranching Co. Ltd, and the directors listed in the CR 12 of 15th July, 2025, to attend court for oral examination as to the company's means and assets, to produce books of account, bank statements, annual returns and certificates of title, and, in default, to face notice to show cause, committal to civil jail and payment of the decretal sum. The defendants filed no response. The court applied Order 22 Rule 35, which permits examination of an officer of a corporate judgment debtor, and adopted the reasoning in Post Bank Credit Limited (In Liquidation) v Nyamangu Holdings Limited that such examination is a lawful process distinct from lifting the corporate veil, though it may later provide grounds for lifting the veil. Noting that the company's assets could not satisfy the decree, that the officials had been evasive, and that a second set of officials had been restrained from managing the company, the court allowed the motion in part: summonses were issued against the current directors in office to appear on 3rd June, 2026 for examination and to produce the company's financial records and title documents; warrants of arrest were to issue in default of attendance; service was to be personal and through their advocates; and costs were awarded in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the decree holders are entitled to summon the current directors of the judgment debtor company for oral examination as to its assets and means of satisfying the decree

Holding

Yes. The court is empowered under Order 22 Rule 35 to summon officers of a corporate judgment debtor for examination and production of documents, and the current directors in office must appear and explain why the decretal sum remains unpaid.

Reasoning

The court invoked Order 22 Rule 35, which expressly permits examination of an officer of a corporate judgment debtor as to its debts, property and means. Relying on Post Bank Credit Limited v Nyamangu Holdings Limited, the court noted that examination is a lawful process distinct from lifting the corporate veil. The decree of Kshs.25,154,000/- with interest, now Kshs.54,094,832.02, remains unsatisfied despite auctioneers' efforts; the applicants' lack of knowledge of the company's assets is a good ground for examination. The officials in office should appear and explain why the decretal sum continues to accumulate interest unpaid.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Under Order 22 Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where a decree is for payment of money, the court may order attendance and oral examination of a corporation's officer as to the judgment-debtor's debts, property and means of satisfying the decree, and production of books or documents
  • Examination of a company officer under Order 22 rule 35 is distinct from lifting the corporate veil; information obtained in such examination may later found an application to lift the veil if the legal threshold is met

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Summons issued directing the current directors of Embakasi Ranching Co. Ltd in office to appear in court on 3rd June, 2026 for examination of the 9th defendant/respondent's assets in satisfying the decretal sums and costs of Kshs.54,094,832.02
  2. 2.The said officials to produce in court books of account, statements, annual returns, bank accounts, certificates of titles of the properties owned by the 9th defendant/respondent and any other information relating to the affairs of Embakasi Ranching Co. Ltd
  3. 3.In default of order (i), warrants of arrest to issue
  4. 4.The said officials to be served personally and through their advocates on record
  5. 5.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 34
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 44(1)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 22 Rule 35
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 5 Rule 17

Cases cited (1)

  • Post Bank Credit Limited (In Liquidation) v Nyamangu Holdings Limited
    [2015] KEHC 5964 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 34 and 44(1) of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 22 Rule 35, Order 51 Rule 1 and Order 5 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kamau & others v Thuita & others (Environment and Land Case 1584 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 2598 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2598/eng@2026-05-04

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.