Kenya company law: Directors of a company

DIRECTORS
“The directors are under Kenya law a body to whom is delegated the duty of managing the general affairs of the company.  A corporate body can only act through agents and it is of course the duty of those agents so to act best to promote the interest of the corporation whose affairs they are conducting”.

Directors are said to be the brain of the company and occupies a pivotal position in the structure of the company, and since the directors are the brains of the company; it is only when the brain functions that the corporation is said to function.

Board of Directors is given the powers to manage and run the company. Cap. 486 together with the articles bestows powers to directors to manage.  Members have no right to interfere with such management; infact if members interfere; the directors have a right to bring an action against the members to restrain them.

The directors have an express right to manage the company, but if the management want to interfere with the Board, then they have to convene an extra ordinary general meeting and alter the constitution of the company to allow them interfere.

“If you want to interfere in the management of the company's affairs, convene a general meeting and alter the company’s constitution by passing a resolution obliging the directors to act the way you want”.


Case Law: Automatic Sef Syndicate Ltd vs. Cunningham (1906)
By its articles of association, the general management and control of the company was vested in the directors, subject to regulations as might from time to time be made by extra ordinary resolutions. In particular, the articles of association conferred on the directors the power to sell or otherwise deal with any property of the company on such terms as they may consider fit.  The members at a general meeting passed an ordinary resolution forcing the directors to sell certain property of the company on certain terms.  The directors refused to the effect that it was directive and therefore declined to sell.

It was held that the company’s constitution conferred upon directors the general powers to manage the company, and in particular to decide when to sell the property of the company and on what terms.

Notwithstanding the fact that powers to manage the company have been given to the directors, the members have a right to intervene and take away such management: -
(a)        Where the directors are improperly using the name of the co. in litigation.
(b)        If the B.O.D. itself cannot function due to one reason or another the members may intervene.
There were two members who were also directors of the company. A conflict arose which rendered them impossible to even communicate face to face and the only communication was by way of memos.  One member went to court petitioning for winding up under the clause “just and equitable”.  The court agreed with the application, but it was observed that:-

“If it had been possible to have separate members from these two, the court have ordered that they take up the management until a new team comes in”.
In another instance, (Foster vs. Foster), there was a disagreement and as a result there was a deadlock in voting.  The court said that under those circumstances where the directors are unable to exercise powers conferred upon them by the company’s articles, the company/members in a general meeting would take over the management and appoint a new team.

(c)        Where the directors have acted ultra vires the powers granted to them or the company itself: - The management can ratify that which the directors did in excess of their powers. For example, if the articles might have conferred upon them some powers but they have exceeded the powers; in that eventuality, the management can take away those powers.

Secondly, the company did not have the kind of powers the directors exercised, and therefore did not give them powers.  In this case the members can intervene and remove those directors.


Meaning of a Director

Under Section 2 of the Act, “A director, includes any person occupying the position of director by whatever name called”.
“A director may be identified by the functions the person performs even though he may be named differently, for example, Jaduong, Munene and so on.

A director may therefore be defined as, “a person having control over the direction, conduct, management or superintendence of the affairs of a company”.

What is the position of a person occupying the position of a director but is not duly appointed, is he still a director?

A person, who acts as a director performs the functions of a director although not duly appointed and occupies the position of a director, is a director. This is supported by the phrase “by whatever name called”.  This does not limit the meaning. Infact it extends its meaning to include a person who performs the functions as a director though called by another name.

Section 181 also supports the above case in that if a person is not validly appointed as a director, but acts as one and the appointment is later on discovered to be defective, anything that he has done is valid notwithstanding an irregularity in appointment of such a person.