Bright Technical system &General Supplies Limited vs Brave engineering and construction company Limited and Another, misc. COmmerical Application no 132 of 2020.

This case among other things epxlains about application for lifting veil of incorporation as elabotated below.

This court open veils of incorporation of the 1st respondent so that the 2nd respondent who is the director of the 2nd respondent may be arrested and detained as civil prisoner in satisfaction of the decree in
Commercial Case No. 18 of 2018;

Court had this to say:

This marked the end of hearing of this application. Having dutifully and
carefully considered the rivaling arguments and the authorities cited for and against this application, the issue for determination, in my considered opinion, is whether there are exceptional circumstances to warrant this court use its inherent powers to lift the veil of incorporation against the
respondents.

All taken on board and considered dispassionately, I find this application is merited. I will try to explain. One, there is no dispute that Commercial Case No. 18 of 2018 between the applicant and the 1st respondent ended up by deed of settlement and the said deed of settlement
was signed by the 2nd respondent as
director of the 1st respondent.

The above state of affairs is supported by the contents of the counter affidavit of
the respondent in particular at paragraph 3 in which the respondents stated
that the contents of paragraphs of 1-8 inclusive are not in dispute between
parties. Two, on the same token, the decree of the court has not been satisfied as agreed and no plausible explanation is offered by the 2nd respondent why he is not able to satisfy the decree as agreed. This is other than deliberate act not to pay the decreed amount in full on the part of the

2nd respondent who is the director. The only explanation given is that there is
little difficult in business without further particulars what is that little difficulties.


It is for the above reasons, that this court finds that the application is merited
and the intervention of the court to avoid rendering execution impossible in
the circumstances of this court is imperative than not.