The High Court has restored control of investment firm TransCentury Plc to receiver managers appointed by Equity Bank, deepening a protracted corporate battle over the company’s Sh6 billion debt.
The ruling reverses interim orders issued last month that had temporarily restrained the receiver managers, George Weru and Muniu Thoithi, from running the company and effectively restored them. Both Mr Weru and Mr Thoithi are from PwC, a multinational professional services and advisory firm.
TransCentury, which invested heavily in power, transport and engineering projects across East Africa, has been battling mounting debt and liquidity problems for years.
In June 2023, the company was placed under receivership and Equity Bank appointed receiver managers and later in 2025 the Nairobi Securities Exchange (NSE) suspended trading in TransCentury shares.
This was after the company defaulted on loans estimated at more than Sh6 billion, triggering legal disputes involving shareholders, creditors and regulators.
The latest case was filed by the Consumers Federation of Kenya (Cofek)) against the receiver managers, TransCentury, the Kenya Revenue Authority, the National Assembly and the Attorney-General.
Cofek sought orders stopping Mr Weru and Mr Thoithi from continuing as the receiver managers of TransCentury and asked the court to appoint the Official Receiver instead.
The lobby also wanted the court to preserve the company’s assets and direct that alleged outstanding tax liabilities owed to KRA be prioritised before payments to Equity Bank.
The court had initially certified the case as urgent and issued interim orders on April 23 restraining the receiver managers from acting pending further directions.
But the dispute quickly escalated after lawyers representing the receiver managers as well as the Equity Bank challenged the validity of the suit, arguing that the advocate who filed the case for Cofek did not have a current practising certificate at the time.
The court was also confronted with a second dispute over who legally controlled and represented TransCentury after the interim orders effectively allowed directors to resume involvement in the company’s affairs despite the existing receivership.
In its ruling, the court declined to invalidate the suit over the advocate’s practising status, holding that litigants should not be punished for such procedural defects.
‘The complaint only concerns the absence of a current practising certificate at the material time,’ the court said.
‘Guided by the decision of the Supreme Court and the provisions of Section 34B of the Advocates Act, I am unable to hold that the pleadings filed herein are invalid or incapable of sustaining the suit,’ the judge ruled.
He added that courts are required to administer justice ‘without undue regard to procedural technicalities’.
However, the court found that Cofek had failed to fully disclose that TransCentury was already under receivership when it obtained the temporary orders.
‘The material before the court confirms that the third defendant was already under receivership when the Plaintiff moved to the court ex-parte and the receiver managers had already assumed control,’ the court stated.
It added that the temporary orders created confusion over the lawful control of the company by effectively reintroducing directors into management despite the subsisting receivership.
‘That fact was not candidly disclosed,’ the court stated, discharging the interim orders and restoring full authority to the receiver managers pending further court directions.
‘Having discharged the interim orders, the issue regarding representation of the third defendant (TransCentury) stands resolved, the receiver managers remaining in control of the affairs and representation of the company pending further orders of the court,’ the ruling stated.