Kamau v iProcure Limited; Muthusi (Proposed Interested Party) (Cause E197 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 902 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed you can ask it—not the administrator or the High Court—for permission to sue a company under administration.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether leave to continue legal proceedings against a company under administration should be sought from the Administrator or may be granted by the Court
- 2.Whether the leave/approval under section 560(1)(d) of the Insolvency Act must be sought from the High Court handling the insolvency proceedings or may be granted by this Court
Key legal issues
#Whether consent of the Administrator is mandatory before a person may continue proceedings against a company under administration
No - the section offers two options: the Administrator's consent or the Court's approval, and the Court has discretion to grant leave
Section 560(1)(d) of the Insolvency Act permits legal proceedings against a company under administration only with the consent of the administrator or with the approval of the Court. These are alternative routes. The Administrator's assertion that his consent must first be sought misreads the provision, since the section expressly contemplates either route.
Whether only the Insolvency Court (High Court handling insolvency) may grant the leave
No - this Court has the status of the High Court and can grant leave; requiring parties to go elsewhere would obstruct access to justice
Although the Insolvency Act defines 'the Court' as the High Court or a division of the High Court dealing with insolvency disputes, this Court enjoys the status of the High Court when exercising its jurisdiction. Since the claim was filed before administration commenced, expecting the claimant to move the High Court would be an impediment to the constitutionally guaranteed access to justice and expeditious determination of disputes.
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking to continue proceedings against a company under administration may obtain the Court's approval; the Administrator's consent is not a precondition
- This Court, having the status of the High Court when exercising its jurisdiction, may itself grant leave under section 560(1)(d) of the Insolvency Act; requiring parties to move the High Court would impede access to justice
Court orders
#- 1.The Motion dated is marked as withdrawn with costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court's first-instance jurisdiction; the Court's status as the High Court when exercising its jurisdiction, in light of section 560(1)(d) of the Insolvency Act and the constitutional guarantee of access to justice
Relief refused
#Leave to proceed and/or continue with the Claim against the Respondent
The Motion was withdrawn by the Claimant before the Court determined it
Enjoinment of Anthony Makenzi Muthusi of KPMG Advisory Services Ltd as an Interested Party
Not determined; Motion withdrawn
Costs
The Motion is marked as withdrawn with costs.
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.
The Administrator’s objection that his consent must be sought is not correct. A Court has the discretion to grant the leave.
This Court has the status of the High Court when exercising its jurisdiction and it would be an impediment to the right to access justice and expeditious determination of disputes without delay to expect parties before it to move the High Court to secure leave to continue legal proceedings against a company under administration.
The Motion dated is marked as withdrawn with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The Motion date is incomplete in the orders - the Court does not state the date of the Motion it marks as withdrawn
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamau v iProcure Limited; Muthusi (Proposed Interested Party) (Cause E197 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 902 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Motion in a Cause filed 14 March 2024 (Claim filed 14 March 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/902/eng@2025-03-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.