Rift Dairy Products Limited v Lusweti & another; Syokimau Farm Limited (Intended Defendant) (Environment and Land Case 242 of 2018) [2026] KEELC 268 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan company that was gazetted as wound up in 2013 cannot join a lawsuit or defend itself until that winding-up notice is officially voided.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Intended 3rd Defendant/Applicant has locus standi to bring the application given the gazette notice of voluntary winding up published in 2013
- 2.Whether the Intended 3rd Defendant should be enjoined as a party and its Defence and Counter-Claim deemed duly filed
Key legal issues
#Whether the gazette notice of voluntary winding up under Section 241 of the Companies Act deprives the company of locus standi
The company has no locus standi while the gazette notice remains unvoided, notwithstanding the Applicant's contention that the notice is irregular and a suit has been filed to have it declared void
The court accepted the Respondents' submission that the company is in voluntary winding up by special resolution of 26 July 2013, gazetted on 8 August 2013 as notice No. 11485 under Section 241 of the Companies Act. Although the Applicant admitted the notice and claimed the Registrar of Companies and Official Receiver declared it irregular, and had filed HCCOMM No. 421 of 2025 to challenge it, the notice had not been voided. The court relied on Alfred Njau and Law Society of Kenya on the meaning of locus standi, and noted that in Stantech Motors v Syokimau Farm the entity was held not to exist, being a wound-up company. Lacking locus, the application failed and the joinder issue did not need determination.
Whether the joinder issue required determination
It was unnecessary to determine the joinder issue because the Applicant had no locus standi
The court reasoned that once it found the Applicant lacked locus standi, the question of whether joinder was necessary for effective adjudication did not arise. Locus standi is a threshold jurisdictional matter that must be satisfied before a party can be heard on the substance of any application.
Legal principles established
#- Locus standi is the right to appear and be heard before a court; without it a party cannot claim anything in the proceedings
Court orders
#- 1.The application is dismissed with costs
- 2.No joinder of the Intended 3rd Defendant and no deemed filing of its Defence and Counter-Claim
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Order 40 Rules 1, 2 and 4(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, CAP 21 Laws of Kenya; Article 50 of the Constitution of Kenya
Relief refused
#Leave for Syokimau Farm Limited to be enjoined as 3rd Defendant
The Applicant has no locus standi due to the unvoided gazette notice of voluntary winding up
Deeming of the Defence and Counter-Claim dated 24th April 2025 as duly filed
Falls away because the Applicant lacks locus standi
Costs
The application is dismissed with 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.
"The term locus standi means a right to appear in court and conversely to say that a person has no locus standi means that the has no right to appear or be heard in such and such proceedings."
"Locus standi signifies a right to be heard. A person must have suficiency of interest to sustain his standing to sue in court of law."
I find the application is unmerited and I dismiss it with costs.
"The suit against Syokimau Farm Limited the 1st defendant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs, as that entity does not exist, being a dead and buried company having been wound up in 2013 without appointment of liquidator or administrator or similar oficial, and there being no residual assets or accounts pending."
Issues in the judgment
#The Respondents are referred to generically (Plaintiff and 1st Defendant) and no suit case number is given anywhere in the judgment
Tension between the court's finding that the company lacks locus and its own acknowledgment that authorities declared the gazette notice irregular and that a suit is pending to void it; the judgment does not address HCCOMM No. 421 of 2025's effect on the winding-up notice beyond stating it has not been voided
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rift Dairy Products Limited v Lusweti & another; Syokimau Farm Limited (Intended Defendant) (Environment and Land Case 242 of 2018) [2026] KEELC 268 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/268/eng@2026-01-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.