A legal dispute originating from a KShs. 75 million debt has escalated into a major courtroom confrontation, with Keroche Breweries Limited launching a fierce counteroffensive against a liquidation petition, including a KShs. 10 billion damages claim and allegations of procedural abuse.
The conflict began when Sam Krus Shollei filed a petition with the High Court in Nakuru on May 23, 2025, seeking orders to liquidate Keroche Breweries. The petition was based on an alleged unsatisfied monetary agreement from a 2019 employment case between the two parties.
The cornerstone of Keroche’s defense is a challenge to the validity of the very foundation of the petition: the Statutory Demand notice. This notice, dated June 30, 2025, and demanding payment of the KShs. 75 million within 21 days, was signed by the Deputy Registrar of the High Court.
In court documents, Keroche’s lawyers argue this is a critical legal error. They contend that the Insolvency Act requires such a demand to be signed by the creditor or an authorized agent, not a court official.
On these grounds, they have asked the court to declare the demand, the subsequent petition, and a related advertisement null and void, and to strike out the petition entirely.
The public advertisement of the liquidation petition in the Kenya Gazette on August 21, 2025, has become a central point of contention. Keroche Breweries, in affidavits sworn by its CEO, EdwardMwangi Muigai, and an advocate, Karuku Wachira, states that this advertisement, based on what it calls an “illegal” demand, has triggered severe commercial and reputational damage.
The company, which employs over 500 people directly and supports thousands more in its supply chain, says the false signal of insolvency has caused panic among suppliers, lenders, and other stakeholders.
In response, Keroche has not only mounted a defense but has also gone on the offensive. Through its legal team, Waruiru, Karuku & Mwangale Advocates, the company has filed a Notice of Motion demanding that Mr. Shollei pay KShs. 10 billion in reputational damages and issue a public apology with the same prominence as the original liquidation notice.
Keroche firmly denies any insolvency, stating it is a solvent and actively operating business. The company emphasizes that the debt is genuinely disputed, with an appeal pending in the Court of Appeal.
It characterizes the liquidation petition as a “coercive” tactic intended to pressure the company outside of the normal legal process, a claim it supports by pointing to Mr. Shollei’s recent withdrawal of a separate contempt application in the underlying case.
