Court summons Nairobi police chief as Directline control battle escalates
The High Court has ordered the Officer Commanding Nairobi’s Central Police Station to personally explain why orders issued in the protracted battle for control of Directline Assurance Company had not been enforced.
The judge said that the OCS must appear in court to confirm the orders have since been executed, warning that alleged non-compliance had become a recurring issue.
“I want the OCS in person in open court on July 16, 2026, at 2:30pm to explain why he cannot execute the orders of this court or to confirm he has executed the orders,” said the commercial court judge on Wednesday.
The court summoned the OCS following a complaint by Directline Assurance’s lawyer that police at Central Police Station had failed to enforce earlier court orders despite being served with them. The orders required the police to supervise their enforcement, including restoring compliance with the court’s directives governing the management and access to the insurer’s offices.
The case filed in June 2024 centres on control of Directline Assurance and claims involving more than Sh900 million in company funds, disputed banking transactions, rival directors and the legitimacy of key corporate decisions.
The plaintiffs allege that an unauthorized Sh400 million transfer was made from Directline’s account and that a separate Sh500 million held at another bank was irregularly encumbered.
During the Wednesday court session, Directline’s lawyer told the court that police had failed to enforce previous orders despite being served. He said officers at Central Police Station had insisted the orders be verified and appeared reluctant to act.
The court responded by directing the OCS to attend court in person and explain “why he cannot execute the orders of this court or… confirm he has executed the orders.”
The court also criticised what it described as repeated disobedience of court orders, telling defence counsel the issue had resurfaced several times.
“You should advise your client to go and deal with it. Just remove whatever he has done,” the court said, adding: “We don’t have to keep on repeating.”
The defendants’ lawyer sought 21 days to respond after telling the court he had only recently received instructions. The lawyer said the request was made in good faith and agreed that interim orders issued earlier should remain in force pending determination of the application.
Directline sued in June 2024, asking the court to declare that businessman Samuel Kamau “SK” Macharia has no authority to hold himself out as chairman unless appointed by the company’s majority shareholders or duly elected board.
It also sought declarations that several other defendants are not lawful directors or company secretary and permanent injunctions barring them from acting as company officials.
The insurer further sought orders freezing transactions on several company bank accounts held at Diamond Trust Bank, Equity Bank, Family Bank and I&M Bank except with court approval or authorization from the company’s recognised shareholders and board.
A central claim concerns the transfer of Sh400 million from Directline’s Diamond Trust Bank account to Toy and Suna Holdings Ltd.
The company asked the court to declare the transfer unauthorised and order the money refunded with accrued interest. It also sought to hold the defendants personally liable if the funds are not recovered.
The suit also challenges an alleged Sh500 million encumbrance placed over Directline funds held at Family Bank. The company argued the security was created without shareholder approval through a resolution authorising a Sh300 million guarantee in favour of Toy and Suna Holdings and asked the court to declare both the resolution and an accompanying letter of comfort irregular and unauthorised.
In addition, Directline accused Diamond Trust Bank and Family Bank of acting on instructions from individuals it said were not lawful company officials.
It asked the court to declare that receiving and acting on those instructions amounted to “gross and/or professional negligence.”
The company also applied for orders barring the disputed directors from accessing its offices at Hazina Towers, interfering with management or issuing instructions to employees.
It wanted the Insurance Regulatory Authority to determine the approval of directors elected by shareholders and has asked for a forensic audit to investigate alleged fraud, mismanagement and unauthorized financial transactions.
Finally, it specifically asked the court to direct the OCS, Central Police Station, together with any reinforcement deemed necessary by the Inspector General, to supervise enforcement of the court’s orders.
Crédito: Link de origem