In re Manchester Outfitters Limited & Others (Galot Family Disputes)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI COMMERCIAL AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION CIVIL SUIT NO. 430 OF 2012 GALOT LIMITED......................................................1 ST PLAINTIFF MANCHESTER OUTFITTERS LIMITED...........2ND PLAINTIFF GALOT INDUSTRIES LIMITED...........................3RD PLAINTIFF KING WOOLEN MILLS LIMITED......................4TH PLAINTIFF GALOT INTERNATIONAL LIMITED.................5TH PLAINTIFF VERSUS PRAVIN GALOT & 4 OTHERS...........................1ST DEFENDANT RAJESH GALOT...................................................2 ND DEFENDANT KAMAU ERNEST KAKA.....................................3RD DEFENDANT RULING 1. Who, in the world, will advise the family, commonly referred to as Galot, to sit down and agreed, have a consensus on how their family businesses will be run for the benefit of the shareholders. Those family businesses are, Manchester Outfitters Limited, Galot Industries Limited, King Wollen Mills Limited Galot International Limited and perhaps others I do not know. My outcry, asking who will help these parties is made in the light of the fact they have brought numerous court actions against each other in various courts which include criminal courts. The learned advocates, from my point of view, formed when I entertained this matter, are not helping but rather, it seems, they are fuelling the disputes. There is so much cut throat competition between the learned counsel that I have been addressed, at the hearing of this matter by counsels who claim to represent the same party but in reality they hold a contrasting view point of how this matter should be prosecuted. The animosity between the parties and the advocates is so palpable that one of the parties complained to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) that I was biased and not fit to hear this matter, as a Judge. This was done to intimidate me from dealing with this matter. It is indeed disheartening. 2. I have gone through the various documents filed in this matter and I have formed the opinion that indeed this matter was stayed by a three Judge Bench, of Judges of the High Court, when the learned Judges were hearing HCCC 55 of 2012. HCCC 55 of 2012 involves the same parties as in this case. 3. In HCCC 55 of 2012 Justice Musinga (as he then was) on 24 th February 2012 recorded a consent order, which consent was signed by the parties personally, which consent was in following terms: “2.The issue of dicrectorship and shareholding of Manchester Outfitters Ltd be heard before 3 Judges to be appointed by the Chief Justice. The determination thereof to be applied in all the other cases.” 4. The Chief Justice appointed Justices F. Ochieng, E Ogolla and Lady Justice Jackline Kamau to hear HCCC 55 of 2012. On 3rd October 2014 the three learned judges made the following order: “1. The proceedings in HCCC No 430 of 2012 referred to are hereby stayed pending the finalization of this matter.”

page 1 of 2