Ndovu Rock Ltd v Weindaba (Insolvency Notice E138 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 8346 (KLR) (Commercial & Admiralty) (11 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8346 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS) COMMERCIAL AND ADMIRALTY INSOLVENCY NOTICE E138 OF 2024 MO ADO, J JUNE 11, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF OBJECTION TO A STATUTORY LIQUIDATION NOTICE ISSUED BY JAMES MUTELE WEINDABA TO NDOVU ROCK LIMITED BETWEEN NDOVU ROCK LIMITED ...................................................................... APPLICANT AND JAMES MUTELE WEINDABA ........................................................... RESPONDENT RULING 1. The Applicant seeks review of the ruling delivered on 26th March 2025 on the ground that the court erroneously stated that the Applicant had not sought an order setting aside the statutory demand notice dated 13th June 2024. 2. The Applicant points out that Prayer 4 of the Application dated 3rd July 2024 expressly sought an order setting aside the statutory demand notice. The Respondent opposes the application and states that, in any event, the statutory demand was withdrawn by a letter dated 3rd December 2024. 3. The jurisdiction of the court under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules is limited to correction of an error apparent on the face of the record or for other sufficient reason. Review is not an appeal through the back door. 4. I have perused the Application dated 3rd July 2024, and I agree with the Applicant that there was indeed a prayer seeking to set aside the statutory demand notice. To that extent, the court fell into error in stating that no such prayer had been sought. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8346/eng@2026-06-11 1
page 1 of 2
5. That finding alone, however, does not entitle the Applicant to the orders sought. The Respondent has exhibited a letter dated 3rd December 2024 withdrawing the statutory demand notice, and the Applicant has not disputed that fact. 6. Once the statutory demand was withdrawn, there was nothing left to set aside. Courts do not issue orders in vain. Further, the court had also found the earlier application incompetent and misconceived. 7. In the circumstances, although there was an apparent error in the ruling of 26th March 2025, no useful purpose would be served by reviewing or varying the orders of the court. 8. The Notice of Motion dated 3rd June 2025 is therefore dismissed. Each party shall bear its own costs. 9. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2026 HON. MR. JUSTICE MOSES ADO JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT In the Presence of: Moses C/A Shimoli………………for the Applicant Kering…………for the Respondent https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8346/eng@2026-06-11 2
page 2 of 2