Fahari Trading Limited v Jilao Company Limited
The bottom line
#If a company owes you money, the court can force its officers to testify and produce company records to help you collect the debt.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether an order for oral examination of a corporation's officers and production of its books should issue under Order 22 rule 35
Yes. The decree remains unsatisfied, no assets were found in the company's name, the application was unopposed on the evidence, and the officers are identified by the company registration record.
The rule is an aid to execution enabling a decree holder to ascertain the judgment debtor's property or means. A corporation acts only through its officers, so the rule permits their examination and production of company books. The grant is discretionary but ordinarily issues where the decree is unsatisfied and the application is in good faith. The assertion that the director relocated to Somalia was unsupported and would at most bear on enforcement of attendance.
Whether officers' personal bank statements, personal liability orders, and preservative orders over a director's vehicle can be granted on a rule 35 application
No. Each relief travels beyond what an examination as to means permits; reaching personal assets requires piercing the corporate veil on evidence in properly constituted proceedings.
The examination authorised is of the judgment debtor company's means and the production authorised is of the company's books. The officers are not the judgment debtor, so no attachment or committal can issue against them personally on this application. The vehicle had already been found to be the director's personal property and its attachment lifted, so no preservative order in aid of execution against the company could issue. Allegations of fraud were untested.
Legal principles established
#- Order 22 rule 35 permits examination of a corporation's officers and production of the company's books and documents where a money decree remains unsatisfied; the order will ordinarily issue where the decree is unsatisfied and the application is made in good faith
- An examination as to means under Order 22 rule 35 does not fix a company's officers with personal liability for the company's decree; piercing the corporate veil requires a substantive determination on evidence in properly constituted proceedings
- Committal to civil jail cannot be ordered in advance as a sanction for a possible default in attending an examination
Court orders
#- 1.Abdullahi Ahmed Haji and Hosea Kili, and any other officer of the judgment debtor, shall attend before the court on a date to be fixed and be orally examined as to the debts owing to and the property and means of the judgment debtor available to satisfy the decree
- 2.The said officers shall produce at the examination the books of accounts, audited financial statements, annual returns, bank statements and cheque books of the judgment debtor company for the last five years
- 3.The prayer for the production of the officers' personal bank statements is declined
- 4.The prayers, in default of attendance, for orders deeming the officers personally liable, for warrants of attachment against them, and for their committal to civil jail are declined
- 5.The prayer for preservative orders over motor vehicle registration number KBH 414R is declined
- 6.The costs of the application shall be borne by the judgment debtor
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Execution jurisdiction of the court under Order 22 rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Fahari Trading Limited v Jilao Company Limited", Case Analysis (2026). . Source:
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.