Bank of Africa (U) Limited and Haile Benteyehun v Perfect Roses Farm Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1556 of 2025)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
Held that a company struck off the register of companies but subsequently reinstated has legal capacity to maintain proceedings. The reinstatement settled the question of capacity. The court rejected arguments raised only in written submissions about the invalidity of proceedings conducted during the period between striking off and restoration, as these constituted a departure from pleadings and were not raised in the motion papers.
Outcome
Application dismissed; main suit to proceed
Facts
The Respondent company filed Civil Suit No. 355 of 2017 against the Applicants. On 14 August 2023, the Registrar of Companies struck the Respondent off the register of companies. The Applicants then brought this application seeking dismissal of the main suit on grounds that the Respondent lacked legal capacity to maintain proceedings. The Respondent filed affidavits in reply revealing that it had embarked on the process of reinstatement and subsequently filed a supplementary affidavit confirming completion of reinstatement on the register of companies. The Applicants did not file an affidavit in rejoinder disputing the restoration.
Issues
- Whether the Respondent has the legal capacity to maintain the main suit.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs of the application to abide by the outcome of Civil Suit No. 0355 of 2017.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
Cases cited (1)
- Interfreight Forwarders v East African Development Bank (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1992)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.