Commercial & Admiralty Divison v Mediflon Enterprises (k) Ltd & 2 others

4. In the Affidavit of 31st May 2016 sworn by Lucas Muganda he depones that following the Order of Justice Gikonyo, the 1st Defendant submitted the following names to the Registrar of Companies (the 3 rd Defendant on 28th April 2015:a. MEDIFLON KENYA LIMITED b. MEDIFLON (E.A) LIMITED c. MEDIFLON HEALTH CARE(K) LIMITED 28th April 2015 was said to be the third working day of the day of the Order ie. 23 rd April, 2015. The three names submitted were said to be available and reserved. 5. The 1st Defendant is aggrieved as the 3rd Defendant has not acted on that letter. 6. Following information from the rumor mills, the 1 st Defendant has learnt that its name was wrongfully changed to MEDI SUPPLIES LIMITED. The 1st Defendant reads a collusion between the Plaintiff and the 3rd Defendant. 7. In response to that Application John Ogola Orimba and Alice Mwendwa sworn Affidavits on 13 th June 2016 and 24th June 2016 respectively. The former is a Director of the Plaintiff Company while the latter is an Assistant Registrar of Companies. The two take a similar position which is simply this. 8. That the Order of the Judge of 23rd April 2015 was served on the 3rd Defendant on 28th April, 2015. Some two months prior, there was a change of name of the 1 st Defendant from MEDIFLON ENTERPRISES (K) LIMITED to MEDI SUPPLIES LIMITED. That change followed a request by the 1st Defendant for a change of name through a Special Resolution by the 1 st Defendant filed with the 3rd Defendant on 2nd February 2015. 9. That assertion surprised the 1st Defendant Company who through a Supplementary Affidavit of Lucas Maganda disowned the said Resolution and averred that it was fraudulent and a forgery. That the 1st Defendant had since reported the suspected forgery to the Police under OB 52/07/04/2016. The same was still under investigation at the time of the swearing of the Affidavit on 20th June 2016. 10. This Court has considered the Application, the rival Affidavits and the submissions of Counsel. 11. The Court record shows that on 10th March 2015, a Wambui appeared for both the 2 nd and 3rd Defendant and addressed Court as follows:“We wrote in October 2013 to the 1st Defendant after realizing the anomaly. We accept there is an anomaly. We wrote again on 24.6.2014. They have not complied. We are of the view they should change name. We shall invoke Section 20 of the Companies Act. They have not responded. Two weeks will end on 18.3.2015 as per our letter dated 4.5.2015”. 12. Then the 3rd Defendant did not inform Court that the 1 st Defendant, had pursuant to its own resolution, sought a change of name and that the same was effected on 11 th February 2015, a month before the Court attendance of 10th March 2015. 13. And in the Affidavit of 24th June, 2016, Alice Mwendwa, an Assistant Registrar of Companies does not attempt to explain why Counsel had given the impression that the change of name had not been effected. Was it on the basis of some wrong information? There is a strange and loud silence on this.

page 2 of 4

14. It would be most confounding, would it not, that the Plaintiff would present this suit on 17 th February 2015 seeking the deregistration of the 1st Defendant when infact the 1st Defendant had on its own volition changed its name to MEDI SUPPLIES LIMITED on 11 th February 2015. Or perhaps the Plaintiff was not aware of this change! 15. On the material placed before this Court, the Court believes, prima facie, the story as told by the 1 st Defendant. 16. As to what orders need to be made, I bear in mind that this dispute arose in the regime of the Repealed Companies Act (cap 486) and the law applicable to this dispute would be the provisions of that repealed statute. Section 20(2)(a) of that statute provides:“If, through inadvertence or otherwise, a Company on its first Registration or on its registration by a new name is registered by a name which, in the opinion of the Registrar, is too like the name by which a company on existence is previously registered, the first –mentioned company may change its name with the sanction of the Registrar and, if he so directs within six months of its being registered by that name, shall change it within a period of six weeks from the date of the direction or such longer period as the Registrar may think fit to allow” 17. The 1st Defendant is desirous that its name be changed to MEDIFLON KENYA LIMITED being one of the names submitted to the 3rd Defendant. The Plaintiff insists that the name is still similar to its name. At the first instance it is the Registrar who should make the call as to whether, in his/her opinion, the second name is too like to the name of the Plaintiff. This Court does not intend to direct the Registrar one way or other unless it shall be demonstrated that he/she is acting improperly or in bad faith. 18. These are the orders that endear themselves to this Court. 1. The name MEDI SUPPLIES LIMITED shall be deregistered and the name of the 1st Defendant reverts to MEDIFLON ENTERPRISES (K) LTD. 2. The 1st Defendant, either by themselves agent and/or servants or any other person and/or authority are hereby restrained from trading or using the name MEDIFLON ENTERPRISES (K) LTD pending implementation of Order (3) below. 3. The 3rd Defendant shall within (3) working days hereof consider suitability of the 3 names submitted to it by the 1st defendant and report back to Court. 4. The Court shall thereafter make further orders. 5. Costs of the Application to the 1st Defendant. Dated, Signed and Delivered in Court at Nairobi this 11th Day of November, 2016. F. TUIYOTT JUDGE PRESENT; Havi for Ochanda for Plaintiff

page 3 of 4

N/A for Defendants Alex - Court clerk

page 4 of 4