PATRICK OMORO
What You Need to Know
The role of directors in Kenya has shifted dramatically, with personal liability becoming a critical concern. The Companies Act 2015 has established clear fiduciary duties, making directors personally accountable for breaches. This change, coupled with increased litigation risks, underscores the necessity of robust Directors and Officers (D&O) insurance to protect personal assets and ensure sound,
Africa-Press – Kenya. The evolution of the Kenyan boardroom has transformed the role of a director from a prestigious oversight position into a high-stakes legal responsibility.
Whether in a burgeoning private enterprise or a massive state-owned corporation, the protection once offered by the “corporate veil” has grown increasingly thin.
Today, directors and officers (D&Os) operate in an environment where personal assets are often just one management decision away from litigation.
Securing a robust D&O liability policy is no longer a luxury or a corporate “perk”; it is a fundamental pillar of modern risk management necessitated by a rigorous legal framework.This shift began in earnest with the Companies Act 2015, a watershed piece of legislation that codified the fiduciary duties of directors into clear, statutory obligations.
Under Sections 140 through 147, directors—both executive and non-executive—are bound by a rigid set of duties: to act within their powers, to promote the success of the company, to exercise independent judgment and to apply reasonable care, skill and diligence.
Crucially, Section 148 removes any ambiguity regarding the consequences of a breach, while Section 151 imposes a personal obligation to declare interest in transactions.
These are not merely corporate liabilities; they are personal mandates. When a breach occurs, the law increasingly looks past the company’s bank account and toward the director’s personal estate.
The complexity deepens when considering the Insolvency Act 2015, which introduces the perilous concept of “wrongful trading.” If a director continues to trade when they know, or ought to have known, that the company had no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvency, they can be held personally liable to contribute to the company’s assets.
For listed entities, the Capital Markets Act (Cap 485A) and the CMA Code of Corporate Governance Practices further heighten the stakes.
The regulator has sharpened its focus on “disclosures” and “misleading statements,” where even a non-executive director can be ensnared in litigation for failing to adequately interrogate financial reports that later prove inaccurate.
The reality of these risks is evidenced by a surge in commercial litigation within Kenyan courts. Recent 2024 and 2025 rulings involving the collapse of tier 2 banks and forensic audits of distressed retailers demonstrate a clear trend: liquidators and shareholders are targeting the personal wealth of directors to recover lost value.
The rise of derivative actions—where minority shareholders sue on behalf of the company—means that even internal friction can lead to external legal costs that quickly exceed a director’s annual compensation.
Kenya is also mirroring global trends in environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards and “Event-Driven Litigation.” We are seeing a local uptick in regulatory activism by competition authorities.
This environment of accountability is also intense within Kenya’s state corporations and government agencies. Historically, public sector officials felt shielded by the sovereign shadow.
However, recent government pronouncements and the State Corporations Act have emphasised a “leaner, more accountable” public service. With the National Treasury’s 2025 directives on fiscal discipline and ongoing anti-graft crusades, board members of state agencies are under unprecedented scrutiny.
A single procurement error or a perceived failure to safeguard public funds can trigger an investigation by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission or a summons from a Parliamentary Investment Committee (PIC) and subsequent prosecution.
The intensity of this scrutiny has fundamentally shifted the risk-reward calculus for those serving in the public sector. For a director in a state corporation, the “sovereign shield” has effectively vanished, replaced by a legal environment where personal liability is the new baseline.
Recent directives from the National Treasury and the uncompromising stance of the EACC make it clear: oversight failures are no longer just “administrative lapses”— they are personal liabilities.
Without a robust D&O policy, a director is essentially wagering their family’s home, their savings and their professional reputation on the hope that every single procurement decision or board resolution across a four-year term is beyond reproach. In a climate where “political risk” can manifest as a multi-million-shilling surcharge or a freezing of personal assets, the absence of D&O coverage creates a paralysing fear.
This fear doesn’t just hinder bold decision-making; it ensures that high-caliber professionals with significant personal assets to lose will increasingly view public service as a “toxic” career move.
Ultimately, providing D&O insurance is not an act of corporate indulgence; it is a critical indemnity provision. It ensures that the state’s leadership is not limited to those who are “judgment-proof” because they have no assets to lose but is instead composed of competent professionals who can discharge their fiduciary duties objectively, knowing their personal financial survival is not tethered to the next forensic audit or a politically motivated investigation.
To navigate these waters, a “gold-standard” policy must be modular and comprehensive, mirroring the world’s most sophisticated coverage structures.
It must provide coverage, protecting directors when the company is legally forbidden from indemnifying them, as well as corporate reimbursement which kicks in when the company has to reimburse the directors the expenses, they may have incurred defending themselves.
Beyond these basics, a truly effective policy in the Kenyan context must include investigation costs for regulatory inquiries, coverage for past, present and future directors, and “emergency defence costs” to ensure legal representation is available the moment a crisis hits.
Ultimately, good corporate governance is not just about ticking boxes; it is about creating an environment where leaders can make bold, strategic decisions with a clear mind.
D&O insurance is the safety net that professionalises the boardroom. In a legal regime where the personal balance sheets of directors are now fair game, and where the public sector is held to private-sector standards of accountability, the question for any Kenyan board is no longer “Why do we need a D&O policy?” but rather, “Can we afford to meet without one?”
The transformation of the director’s role in Kenya began with the Companies Act 2015, which codified fiduciary duties into law. This legislation marked a significant shift, emphasizing personal accountability and the legal responsibilities of directors, which has led to increased scrutiny and litigation risks. The rise of derivative actions and regulatory activism has further complicated the landscape, making D&O insurance essential for safeguarding personal assets.
In addition to corporate governance changes, the public sector in Kenya has seen a similar evolution. The State Corporations Act and recent government directives have heightened accountability for public officials, removing the
Source: The Star
