Twin Properties Investment Limited v Kasarani Settlement Limited & 2 others
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that a company facing execution of a judgment debt must send its officials to court, striking out its attempt to block the process as premature.
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 said Preliminary Objection is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether a Notice to Show Cause for committal to civil jail can issue against a company
The preliminary objection was premature; the Notice was titled 'Notice to Show Cause why execution should not issue' and an official of the company should come to court to show cause why he/she should not be committed.
The court noted the Notice was for examination/execution, not yet committal. Order 22 Rule 35 permits oral examination of a corporation's officers as to its means. Section 38 allows committal only after the judgment-debtor is given an opportunity to show cause, which had not yet occurred. The plaintiff was 'jumping the gun' by filing interlocutory applications instead of explaining how it would settle the decretal sum.
Whether the preliminary objection met the Mukisa Biscuits 'pure point of law' threshold
The objection was premature and was struck out rather than upheld on the merits.
The court applied the Mukisa Biscuits and Aviation & Allied Workers Union tests for a pure point of law, but found the objection premature because the court was yet to determine whether the plaintiff would be committed to civil jail; the plaintiff had engaged in filing applications while the decretal sum remained unpaid.
Legal principles established
#- Where a judgment debtor is a corporation, it can only be summoned through its officials, who may be examined as to the corporation's means of satisfying the decree.
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff's Preliminary Objection dated 16th February 2026 struck out as premature
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 38, 40-43 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 22 Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules (execution and examination of judgment debtor)
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.
In the foregoing, I find the Preliminary Objection premature and will strike it out.
From the Court record noting that the Plaintiff is not a natural person but a corporation, I opine that it can only be summoned through its officials.
I hence find that an official of the Company should come to Court to show cause why he/she should not be committed to civil jail for failure to settle the decretal sum.
As per the above provisions, where a judgment debtor is a corporation, the Rules are clear that it speaks only through its officers.
Issues in the judgment
#Salomon v Salomon citation year printed as [1987]AC 22; the well-known citation is [1897] AC 22.
Mukisa Biscuits cited with two different page numbers (EA 696 and [1969] EA).
Counsel names inconsistently recorded in the appearance section.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Twin Properties Investment Limited v Kasarani Settlement Limited & 2 others", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Suit No. 532 of 2010. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5996/eng@2026-10-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.