First Community Bank Ltd v Saalat (Civil Appeal (Application) 517 of 2019) [2026] KECA 1057 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed Premier Bank to amend its appeal documents to reflect a name change, confirming that rebranding does not disrupt ongoing court cases.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether leave should be granted to amend the Notice of Appeal, Memorandum and Record of Appeal to reflect the applicant's change of name from First Community Bank Limited to Premier Bank Kenya Limited
- 2.Whether the amendment would cause prejudice or injustice to the respondent
Key legal issues
#Whether leave to amend appellate process to reflect a change of the appellant's corporate name should be granted
Leave was granted; the amendment concerns description, not identity, and is relevant, made in good faith and non-prejudicial.
The applicant lawfully changed its name, evidenced by Gazette Notice No. 6797 of 20th April 2023, Central Bank of Kenya regulatory approval and a certificate of change of name from the Registrar of Companies. The change does not affect legal personality; the same legal person continues with all rights and liabilities intact. Under section 66(4) of the Companies Act, no proceedings become defective. The respondent was served and raised no objection, and no prejudice was demonstrated; any inconvenience is compensable by costs.
The standard governing amendments before hearing under the Court of Appeal Rules
Amendments sought before hearing should be freely given where they do not cause injustice, and inconvenience is compensated by costs.
Relying on Eastern Bakery v Castelino and Kendal Sarjit Singh Dhiman v Keshavj Shah, the court applied the settled liberal approach: amendments must be relevant, made in good faith and non-prejudicial to the opposite party. The discretion of a single judge is unfettered but circumscribed by the requirement to act judiciously, with the ends of justice in mind.
Legal principles established
#- A single judge's discretion to grant or deny leave to amend is unfettered but must be exercised judiciously; amendments sought before hearing should be freely given where they do not cause injustice to the opposite party, and inconvenience can be compensated by costs.
- A change of a company's name does not affect its rights or obligations and does not render defective any legal proceedings by or against it.
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the applicant to amend its Notice of Appeal lodged on 17th January 2019 and the Memorandum and Record of Appeal dated 25th October 2019 to reflect its current correct name Premier Bank Kenya Limited
- 2.The application dated 4th November 2025 allowed under rule 46 of the Court of Appeal Rules as prayed, with no order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 1(2) and 46 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (discretion of a single judge to grant leave to amend)
Relief refused
#Costs of the application
The court allowed the application but made no order as to costs instead of awarding costs to the applicant as sought
Costs
No order as to costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
It is the contention of the applicant that the said change of name does not afiect the legal personality of the applicant which remains the same with all it's rights, liabilities and obligations intact and continuing seamlessly, adding that this is not to be seen in any way as seeking to substitute or enjoin a new party but merely to regularize the record to refiect its current legal identity.
In exercising discretion to grant or deny leave to amend under rule 1(2) and rule 46 of the Rules of this court, the unfettered discretion of a single judge is only circumscribed by the requirement to do so judiciously.
In the result, I am satisfied that the proposed amendments are relevant, necessary, made in good faith and not likely to prejudice the respondent. Accordingly, the application dated 4th November, 2025 has merit and is hereby allowed under rule 46 of the rules of this court as prayed, with no order as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Recurring typographical rendering of 'affect' as 'afiect' and 'reflect' as 'refiect' throughout the judgment, and the citation of Eastern Bakery appears as "[1958] EA 4t1)" in the text, apparently a typographical corruption of [1958] EA 411.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "First Community Bank Ltd v Saalat (Civil Appeal (Application) 517 of 2019) [2026] KECA 1057 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1057/eng@2026-05-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.