P. Mulwa, J. v Buzeki Investment Group Limited & 1 other

HCCOMM MISC NO. E1055 OF 2020 P. MULWA, J. to pay the decretal sum. He averred that the notice to show cause dated 25th November 2024 was not served. He states that the Objectors are not directors of Buzeki Investment Group Limited. 3. The application is opposed by the replying affidavit of Pennynah Samba, sworn on 13th September 2025. She avers that following the adoption of a Certificate of Taxation for Kshs. 12,342,858 as a judgment of the Court on 12 th October 2023, the Court directed that the Judgment Debtor’s directors and shareholders, Zedekiah Buzeki Kiprop Bundotich and Diana Jepchumba Bundotich, be summoned for oral examination regarding the company’s assets and financial affairs. It is deponed that although summons were issued, only Zedekiah Buzeki Kiprop Bundotich appeared and failed to demonstrate any means of satisfying the decree or to produce the financial records ordered by the Court, while Diana Jepchumba Bundotich failed to attend altogether. 4. He contends that the Judgment Debtor has not maintained proper financial records and that the respondents have made no effort to settle the decretal sum. It is further alleged that their claim that they are no longer directors or shareholders is false, that subsequent changes in the company’s directorship were effected to evade liability and existing warrants of arrest, and that they remain the true beneficial owners and controlling minds of the Judgment Debtor. According to the deponent, the corporate veil is being used to frustrate the enforcement of the decree and Page 2 of 5

page 2 of 5

HCCOMM MISC NO. E1055 OF 2020 P. MULWA, J. the objections raised are intended solely to defeat justice and avoid compliance with the Court orders. 5. The application was heard by way of written submissions. The Objectors filed submissions dated 7 th October 2025 while the Decree holder filed submissions dated 5 th November 2025, Analysis and determination 6. I have given due care to the application, the affidavits on record, and the submissions filed. The issue for determination is whether the orders of 28 th October 2024 ought to be set aside. 7. The court record shows that by a ruling delivered on 8 th February 2024, Zedekiah Buzeki Kiprop Bundotich and Diana Jepchumba Bundotich were ordered to attend Court for oral examination and to produce financial and corporate records relating to the Judgment Debtor. The record further shows that summons were subsequently issued in compliance with that court order. 8. Significantly, Zedekiah Buzeki Kiprop Bundotich appeared before the Court on 19th April 2024 and was examined on oath regarding the affairs of the Judgment Debtor. Having appeared and participated in the proceedings, he cannot subsequently challenge the process on the basis that service was not effected. 9. The Applicants further contend that they are not directors of the Judgment Debtor. However, the material placed before the Court reveals that the issue of their connection with the Judgment Debtor was considered by the Court when the Page 3 of 5

page 3 of 5

HCCOMM MISC NO. E1055 OF 2020 P. MULWA, J. orders for examination were issued. More importantly, during his examination, Zedekiah Buzeki Kiprop Bundotich acknowledged his involvement in the affairs of the company and explained the Judgment Debtor's inability to satisfy the decree by reference to the financial challenges of a related company, namely Buzeki Enterprises Limited. This Court cannot countenance a party blowing hot and cold. Having submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Court and participated in the oral examination, he is estopped from now denying his connection to the Judgment Debtor. 10. The chronology of events disclosed in the material before the directorship Court is occurred telling. after The alleged execution change proceedings of had commenced and after warrants of arrest had been issued. No satisfactory explanation has been offered for those changes. The Court is therefore unable to accept the Applicants' contention that they have no connection with the Judgment Debtor. 11. The Court is also guided by the principle that litigation must come to an end and that a successful litigant should not be deprived of the fruits of a lawful judgment. 12. The order sought to be set aside was issued on 28 th October 2024, yet the instant application is dated 12 th May 2025 and was brought after a delay of over six months. This is an unreasonable delay which has not been satisfactorily explained. The Applicants’ application, filed long after the orders were issued and without any plausible justification, is Page 4 of 5

page 4 of 5

HCCOMM MISC NO. E1055 OF 2020 P. MULWA, J. a classic example of an attempt to delay and obstruct the course of justice. 13. I am satisfied that the current application is meant to delay and obstruct execution rather than vindicate any genuine grievance. The Applicants have failed to establish any basis upon which the court should exercise its discretion in their favour. 14. Consequently, the Notice of Motion dated 12 th May 2025 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondents. RULING delivered virtually, dated and signed at NAIROBI This 25th day of June 2026. PETER MULWA JUDGE In the presence of: Ms. Samba for Decree-holder/Respondent Ms. Obiria for Objectors/Applicants Court Assistant: Lispa Page 5 of 5

page 5 of 5