Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC.E025.2023-NBI· [2026] KEELC 4452 (KLR)

Kenya Railways Corporation & another v Rubis Energy Kenya Plc & 8 others (Environment and Land Case E025 of 2023 & E079 of 2024 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 4452 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 July 2026
3,970 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~16 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A foreign company registered to operate in Kenya can be sued here without special court permission, so a Delaware firm's attempt to strike out a land suit failed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 8th Defendant, a company incorporated in Delaware, USA, applied under Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 2 Rule 15(1)(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules for dismissal or striking out of the suit against it on the ground that it was served locally by post without the Plaintiff first obtaining leave for service out of the jurisdiction under Order 5 Rules 21, 22, 25 and 29, rendering service a nullity and depriving the court of jurisdiction. The 2nd Plaintiff opposed, producing documentary evidence that the Applicant had registered a place of business in Kenya under Section 366 of the repealed Companies Act (Cap 486), obtained a Certificate of Compliance under Section 367, filed a return of alteration under Section 368, appointed a local agent for service, held suit land under a 99-year grant describing a registered office in Nairobi, and never filed a Notice of Cessation under Section 373. The Postmaster General confirmed the address used for service belonged to the Applicant's parent company. The court framed the issue as whether the Applicant was a foreign entity requiring leave or a registered foreign company serviceable under the Companies Act. Adopting a two-track framework, the court held that a registered foreign company is not outside the jurisdiction, that Section 1010 of the Companies Act, 2015 governs its service, and that the Applicant had submitted to jurisdiction by registering locally and holding land. The Applicant failed to displace evidence of its local registration. The application was dismissed with costs to the 2nd Plaintiff.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether leave under Order 5 CPR was required to serve the 8th Defendant

Holding

No - the Applicant is a registered foreign company with a local place of business, serviceable under Section 1010 of the Companies Act, 2015

Reasoning

The court identified a two-track framework for serving foreign corporations: Order 5 Rule 21 CPR for entities outside Kenya, and Sections 366/1010 of the Companies Act for registered foreign companies. Documentary evidence showed the Applicant obtained a Certificate of Compliance, declared a place of business and registered office, appointed a local agent for service, held land under a 99-year grant, and never filed a Notice of Cessation. Such registration submits the company to Kenyan jurisdiction, so service at its parent's postal address was valid without leave.

p. 11
02

Burden of proving cessation of local presence

Holding

Once local registration is established, the burden shifts to the party asserting a change of status; the Applicant produced no Notice of Cessation or search

Reasoning

Relying on Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd v Mike Laly, the court held that a party cannot merely deny a fact shown in official records without producing a Notice of Cessation or a current official search showing the branch was struck off. The Applicant's failure to produce such evidence was fatal to its application, and it failed to displace the evidence of its local registration and presence.

p. 11

Legal principles established

#
  • Once a foreign company registers locally under the Companies Act, it is no longer outside the jurisdiction for service purposes and the Order 5 leave requirement is bypassed
  • A party cannot deny a fact evidenced by official records without a Notice of Cessation or official search showing the branch was struck off the register

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Applicant's application is unmerited and is hereby dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the 2nd Plaintiff

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 2 Rule 15(1)(d); Order 5 Rules 21, 22, 25, 29; Order 51 Rule 1
  • Companies Act (Cap 486, repealed)Sections 366, 367, 367(2), 368, 372, 373
  • Companies Act, 2015Sections 974, 981, 1010, 1010(2)(b), 1011, 1012; Part XXXVII

Cases cited (9)

  • Rebecca Mwikali vs Guy Andre De Vos & 3 others
    [2022] EKLR
  • DNK vs GS
    [2022] KEHC
  • Misnak International UK Limited vs 4MB Mining Limited c/o Ministry of Mining, Juba, Republic of South Africa, & 3 others
    [2019] eKLR
  • Raytheon Aircraft Credit Corporation v Air Al-Faraj Ltd
    [2005] eKLR
  • Giro Commercial Bank Ltd vs Ali Swaleh Mwangula
    [2016] eKLR
  • Babs Security Services Ltd vs Mwarua Yawa Nzao & 19 Others
    [2019] eKLR
  • W K, M W K (Both suing as the Administrators of the Estate of Dr. W K) & Another vs British Airways Travel Insurance & Another
    [2017] eKLR
  • Ojwang v Black Market Records LLC & another (Commercial Case E435 of 2025)
    [2026] KEHC 3956 (KLR)
  • Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd v Mike Laly
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Orders 2 Rule 15(1)(d), 5 Rules 21, 22, 25 & 29 and 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Railways Corporation & another v Rubis Energy Kenya Plc & 8 others (Environment and Land Case E025 of 2023 & E079 of 2024 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 4452 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC.E025.2023-NBI. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4452/eng@2026-07-06

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