Ruling:
1. I have considered grounds on the face of the Application dated 20.1.23 and the affidavit in support sworn on even date. I note the same is not opposed and an affidavit of service and return of service is available on the court file.
2. The applicant is praying for the cross examination of the Directors of the company as set out in prayer 1 before the other prayers, which counsel stated may fall as a consequence of the cross examination.
3. The applicant stated that it obtained a decree from the court, in the sum of over Kshs 8 million, after which the auctioneers established that the company has seized operations.
4. No other information is available as to how the Company will be able to satisfy its debts that are due to the applicant. She submitted that the directors are still shown to be directors of the Company, and they ought to explain to the court if there are assets available to settle the said amount.
5. I am of the view that the guiding law is found in Masefield Trading (K) Ltd v Rushmore Company Limited & Another Civil Suit No. 1794 of 2000; [2008] eKLR , where, the court stated as follows regarding the Court’s jurisdiction under Order 22 Rule 35:
“I, therefore, take the view that, 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.
6. Based on the reasons stated above, I am satisfied that prayer No. 1 ought to be granted for the purpose of discovery in aid of execution.
7. The Directors are summoned to appear for a hearing in terms of prayer No. 1 on 14th March 2024.
8. The applicant shall have the costs of the application.