'
RULING
1. As I have stated clearly, there is real tension here which requires resolution by the Court. I issued interim orders stopping any appointment of administrators on 23.9.2025. At the time, the NCBA Bank’s application for leave to appoint the two replacement administrators was pending before court although Karori S.C intimated that in his view, it had been overtaken by events.
2. Another important element to this tension is that the said appointment of the replacement administrators was hotly contested and Karori S.C made extensive submissions before me justifying their appointment under the facility instrument and the Insolvency Act.
3. This reframing is important because advocates as ministers of justice, and parties should never attempt or be seen to assist in stealing or steal a match on any party. Karori’s interpretation of my order in these circumstances is therefore distorted as the interest of justice upon which I stopped “any appointment of administrators by any party” was deliberate and could not have permitted or uphold the appointment by NCBA and the two administrators. In addition, the appointment of administrators herein is subject of the appeal in the Court of Appeal filed by NCBA.
4. Therefore, it is not an outcome of good faith in these circumstances for Karori S.C to claim the appointment of the two administrators is in order or in place. That is stealing a match when proceedings are pending over the issue on appointment of administrators for this company.
5. Thus, in the interest of justice and to prevent a miscarriage of justice, the interim order issued did not exclude the appointment of the two replacement administrators. I now clarify the interim order to also include the replacement administrators.
6. The idea of the Insolvency Laws was to depart from the infamous ‘kiss of death’ of companies or businesses which would otherwise be viable whilst the creditors interests and rights are also protected.
7. In proceedings such as these, it is most keen that the court is not placed by the parties in a situation that is absurd.
8. Accordingly, as the application by official receiver for appointment of administrators is pending, I extend the interim orders which also applies to the two administrators until the application is heard. Their appointment is suspended for the sake of clarity. The Official Receiver or any other party may also move the court for any orders.
DATED and DELIVERED at Nairobi this 2nd October, 2025.
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE
'
RULING
1. As I have stated clearly, there is real tension here which requires resolution by the Court. I issued interim orders stopping any appointment of administrators on 23.9.2025. At the time, the NCBA Bank’s application for leave to appoint the two replacement administrators was pending before court although Karori S.C intimated that in his view, it had been overtaken by events.
2. Another important element to this tension is that the said appointment of the replacement administrators was hotly contested and Karori S.C made extensive submissions before me justifying their appointment under the facility instrument and the Insolvency Act.
3. This reframing is important because advocates as ministers of justice, and parties should never attempt or be seen to assist in stealing or steal a match on any party. Karori’s interpretation of my order in these circumstances is therefore distorted as the interest of justice upon which I stopped “any appointment of administrators by any party” was deliberate and could not have permitted or uphold the appointment by NCBA and the two administrators. In addition, the appointment of administrators herein is subject of the appeal in the Court of Appeal filed by NCBA.
4. Therefore, it is not an outcome of good faith in these circumstances for Karori S.C to claim the appointment of the two administrators is in order or in place. That is stealing a match when proceedings are pending over the issue on appointment of administrators for this company.
5. Thus, in the interest of justice and to prevent a miscarriage of justice, the interim order issued did not exclude the appointment of the two replacement administrators. I now clarify the interim order to also include the replacement administrators.
6. The idea of the Insolvency Laws was to depart from the infamous ‘kiss of death’ of companies or businesses which would otherwise be viable whilst the creditors interests and rights are also protected.
7. In proceedings such as these, it is most keen that the court is not placed by the parties in a situation that is absurd.
8. Accordingly, as the application by official receiver for appointment of administrators is pending, I extend the interim orders which also applies to the two administrators until the application is heard. Their appointment is suspended for the sake of clarity. The Official Receiver or any other party may also move the court for any orders.
DATED and DELIVERED at Nairobi this 2nd October, 2025.
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE
'