The High Court has temporarily blocked NCBA Bank Kenya’s latest attempt to take control of Multiple Hauliers East Africa Limited, barely two weeks after the logistics company publicly accused the lender of illegally appointing administrators without the legal authority required under the Insolvency Act.
The development gives a significant boost to Multiple Hauliers in its escalating battle with NCBA and adds a new chapter to a dispute first highlighted on this platform on July 29, when the company challenged the appointment of Muniu Thoithi and George Weru of PricewaterhouseCoopers as joint administrators.
In orders issued on August 7, 2026, Justice Gregory Mutai restrained Thoithi and Weru from presenting themselves as administrators, taking charge of Multiple Hauliers’ operations or exercising functions associated with the administration of the company until the court hears the pending application.
The court also temporarily restrained NCBA Bank and KCB Bank from appointing a receiver or receivers over Multiple Hauliers while the application remains before the court.
The orders effectively freeze NCBA’s latest attempt to exercise control over the logistics company and preserve the existing position until the High Court considers the arguments surrounding the appointment.
The court has not yet ruled that NCBA acted illegally or that the appointment of the PwC officials was invalid. Those questions remain contested and are expected to form part of the substantive proceedings.
However, the intervention is important because it comes directly after Multiple Hauliers raised questions about whether NCBA possessed the legal power it claimed when appointing the administrators.
On July 28, Multiple Hauliers issued a public notice disputing the appointment of Thoithi and Weru and arguing that NCBA does not hold a qualifying floating charge contemplated under Section 534 of the Insolvency Act.
The company maintained that without such a charge, NCBA could not simply appoint administrators on its own and would instead have to seek the intervention of the court.
Multiple Hauliers subsequently moved to court seeking orders stopping the administrators from taking control of its business.
The High Court has now granted temporary protection while that challenge is determined.
Justice Mutai certified the application as urgent and scheduled the matter for hearing on September 25, meaning NCBA will have to wait before its latest attempt to install administrators can proceed.
The dispute revolves around approximately Sh7.2 billion that NCBA is seeking to recover from Multiple Hauliers, but the lender is only one participant in a much larger insolvency battle involving some of Kenya’s biggest financial institutions.
Multiple Hauliers has faced creditor claims running into more than Sh31 billion, while an Official Receiver report indicated assets of approximately Sh17 billion.
Other creditors involved in the dispute include KCB Bank, Co-operative Bank, Prime Bank, I&M Bank, Bank of India, Synergy Industrial Credit and the National Social Security Fund.
Court records have previously indicated that KCB and Co-operative Bank were owed approximately Sh8.82 billion combined, while I&M Bank was demanding about Sh627.9 million.
Synergy Industrial Credit has separately pursued approximately Sh532 million and previously sought the liquidation of Multiple Hauliers on grounds that the company was unable to settle its debts.
The fight over the logistics company has consequently developed into a complicated contest between administration, liquidation, debt recovery and attempts to preserve the business as a going concern.
NCBA’s latest move came through a Gazette Notice dated July 27 announcing the appointment of Thoithi and Weru as administrators.
According to the notice, the administrators were expected to explore whether Multiple Hauliers could be rescued as a going concern or whether administration could produce a better result for creditors than liquidation.
Multiple Hauliers immediately rejected the appointments and issued cease and desist demands against the two PwC officials.
The company also warned customers, suppliers, bankers and other stakeholders against dealing with the administrators while their authority remained disputed.
The August 7 court orders have now prevented the administrators from taking charge while that dispute is litigated.
The confrontation is particularly significant because this is not NCBA’s first attempt to place Multiple Hauliers under administration.
NCBA appointed administrators in June 2021 as its battle to recover money from the transport company intensified.
That appointment was subsequently suspended, while the administration dispute became entangled with liquidation proceedings brought by Synergy Industrial Credit.
The insolvency battle continued through the courts until September 2024, when Justice Alfred Mabeya appointed the Official Receiver after previous administrators resigned.
The Official Receiver was tasked with overseeing a proposed investment transaction and periodically reporting to creditors.
NCBA nevertheless returned in July 2026 with another administrator appointment, triggering the latest confrontation.
The central question raised by Multiple Hauliers remains whether NCBA possesses the qualifying floating charge necessary to exercise the statutory power it relied upon when appointing administrators without first obtaining a court order.
That question has not yet been determined by the High Court.
What has changed is that NCBA can no longer proceed with its latest administration attempt while the challenge is pending.
For Multiple Hauliers, the August 7 decision provides temporary protection against a change in control that could have fundamentally altered the management of its operations before the legality of NCBA’s action was tested.
For NCBA, it means another delay in a debt recovery battle that has already dragged through the courts for years.
It also places greater attention on the circumstances surrounding the July appointment and why the bank believed it possessed sufficient legal authority to install administrators despite the existing insolvency litigation surrounding Multiple Hauliers.
The wider dispute demonstrates the extraordinary financial stakes surrounding the company.
With creditors claiming more than Sh31 billion and several major banks fighting to recover billions of shillings, whoever controls the administration process could have substantial influence over how the company’s remaining assets and operations are handled.
Administration is intended to rescue a distressed company where possible or achieve a better outcome for creditors than immediate liquidation, but the power to appoint an administrator is itself governed by statutory requirements.
That is precisely where Multiple Hauliers has mounted its challenge.
The company is not merely disputing the amount claimed by NCBA. It is questioning whether the lender possessed the legal instrument required to exercise the power it attempted to use.
The High Court’s temporary orders do not answer that question, but they ensure NCBA and its appointed administrators cannot act first and litigate the legality of their authority later.
The next major battle is therefore expected on September 25, when the court is scheduled to hear the application.
Until then, Thoithi and Weru cannot take charge of Multiple Hauliers under the disputed appointment, while NCBA and KCB remain restrained from appointing receivers.
A debt recovery battle that began years ago has consequently developed into a much bigger legal question over who has the right to control one of Kenya’s troubled logistics companies and whether NCBA followed the law when it attempted to seize the administrative steering wheel.
