Sichuan Huashi Enterprises Corporation (ea) Limited & 1 other v Coral Savannah Limited

4. 1. The claimant is the decree holder of Kshs. 25,894,607.13 and the accrued interest arising from the judgment issued by Hon. Mabeya J. on 1.11.2023 with interest thereon. 2. The respondent has to date refused to settle the decretal sum within the period prescribed in the decree, hence is in contempt of court. 3. The applicant has been unsuccessful in executing the decree issued by the court as it has been unable to identify and/ or otherwise trace the judgment debtor’s assets. 4. There are no other remedies available to the applicant to enable it to identify and/ or otherwise trace the judgment debtor’s assets. The applicant served the application upon the respondent on 25.2.2025. However, there was no response filed. Analysis and Determination 5. I have considered the application and the grounds. Discovery of company assets 6. The court may order the examination of a Director of a judgment-debtor company or any officer thereof in court to provide answers in respect to the company’s ability or means to satisfy the decree. Order 22 rule 35(b) and (c) of the Civil Procedure Rules. 7. It is a tool for discovery of assets. 8. Has the applicant satisfied the threshold for the orders of discovery of company assets through summoning and examination of the Directors of the company? Threshold 9. The threshold for the grant of orders for the discovery of company assets is: “ as long as the applicant has shown that the Respondent is in a position to provide information in the nature of discovery ...as to whether any or what debts are owing to the judgment-debtor, and whether the judgment-debtor has any and what property or means of satisfying the decree, the court should summon the person to attend and be examined in relation to the purpose stated in the rule.” Margaret Soares v Jane Otieno [2014] KEHC 6225 (KLR) 10. The applicant deposed that by a ruling dated 1.11.2023, the court allowed the applicant’s application for adoption of an arbitral award dated 24.2.2023 awarding it Kshs. 25,894,607.13/- with interest thereon. A decree was issued on 20.2.2024. It is on record. 11. The applicant stated that the respondent has failed to honour the terms of the decree despite its demands. It further stated that its attempts to enforce the decree through Moran Auctioneers have been futile. 12. The applicant exhibited a copy of the official company search dated 8.11.2024 showing that the respondent’s Director is Patrick Kipchirchir Ng’eny (Mr. Ng’eny). https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7081/eng@2026-04-16 2

page 2 of 4

13. The applicant stated that in August 2024, Mr. Ng’eny proposed to settle the decretal sum through sale of the respondent’s property in Bogani Road, Karen. The applicant exhibited an email dated 21.8.2024 from Mr. Ng’eny communicating the said proposal. 14. However, upon due diligence, the applicant established that the respondent does not own the property. It exhibited a copy of a search in respect of the property. It shows that the property was transferred to Kipng’eno Arap Ng’eny on 29.5.2023. 15. The applicant deposed that thereafter, Mr. Ng’eny declined to have further discussions with the applicant regarding the settlement of the decree. 16. The applicant further mentioned that its attempts to trace other asserts of the respondent have proved futile and the decree remains unsatisfied. 17. Therefore, based on the foregoing, the court finds that the applicant has met the threshold for the grant of the discovery orders under prayer (b) of the application. Lifting of the corporate veil 18. In an application under order 22 rule 35, the court may or may not lift the corporate veil. Masefield Trading (K) Ltd v Rushmore Company Limited & Another [2008] eKLR. 19. The court finds that in the circumstances of this case, it is appropriate that the issue of the lifting of the judgment debtor’s corporate veil be deferred for consideration after the examination of the Directors. Disposal 20. In conclusion, the application dated 24.2.2025 is allowed in the following terms: 1. The respondent’s Directors and/ or shareholders, Patrick Kipchirchir Ng’eny, Christopher Kiprono Ng’eny Ng’eno, Peter Kipkirui Ngeno, Anthony Kiptoo Ng’eno and Elizabeth Chepkirui Ng’eny are hereby directed to produce all the respondent’s books of accounts including the audited financial statements covering the period 2016 to 2025, documents of title to properties owned and other documentary evidence showing the respondent’s assets. 2. The respondent’s Directors and/ or shareholders, Patrick Kipchirchir Ng’eny, Christopher Kiprono Ng’eny Ng’eno, Peter Kipkirui Ngeno, Anthony Kiptoo Ng’eno and Elizabeth Chepkirui Ng’eny are hereby directed to personally attend court and be examined on the respondent’s property and means of satisfying the decree. 3. Prayer (c) is deferred. 4. Costs of this application are awarded to the applicant. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE APPLICATION THIS 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026. ........................................... F. GIKONYO M JUDGE In the presence of: Parties - Absent. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7081/eng@2026-04-16 3

page 3 of 4

CA- Ivan/Aggrey https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7081/eng@2026-04-16 4

page 4 of 4