Share
In Re: Conceicao Piedade Joanes; (Cause No. 38 of 1937) [1944] EACA 10 (1 January 1944)
- Citation
- [1944] EACA 10
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Bartley J
- Case number
- Cause No. 38 of 1937
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Bartley J
- Case number
- Cause No. 38 of 1937
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that where an order of discharge is made but suspended for a stated period, and the discharge order does not expressly require continuation of monthly payments previously ordered, the bankrupt's liability to pay such sums ceases at the date of the order granting discharge subject to suspension. The punishment imposed by the court was the suspension of discharge, not the continuation of payment obligations. The debtor is therefore only liable for payments up to the date of the discharge order, not until the discharge takes effect after the suspension period.
Court disposition
Application for directions answered; debtor only liable for monthly payments up to date of discharge order.
Orders
- The debtor is only liable to pay the monthly sum of Sh. 20 up to the 12th November, 1943.
02
Material facts
Parties
Conceicao Piedade Joanes
BankruptOfficial Receiver
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Monthly Payment Ordered: UGX 20
03
Procedural history
Posture
Bankruptcy Application / Application for Directions
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the bankrupt is liable to continue paying the monthly sum to the Official Receiver up to the date the order of discharge takes effect or only up to the date of the order granting discharge subject to suspension.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Official Receiver seeks directions on whether the debtor remains liable to pay the monthly sum of Sh. 20 up to the effective date of discharge or only until the date of the order suspending discharge.
- Respondent
- The debtor contends that liability to pay the monthly sum should cease upon the making of the order granting discharge, even if suspended, unless the court specifically orders continuation of payments.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
in re Gold ex parte Gold 8 Morrell 45
A bankrupt ordered to pay a monthly sum to the Official Receiver is only liable up to the date of the order granting discharge subject to suspension, unless the discharge order expressly provides for continued payments.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that where an order of discharge is made but suspended for a stated period, and the discharge order does not expressly require continuation of monthly payments previously ordered, the bankrupt's liability to pay such sums ceases at the date of the order granting discharge subject to suspension. The punishment imposed by the court was the suspension of discharge, not the continuation of payment obligations. The debtor is therefore only liable for payments up to the date of the discharge order, not until the discharge takes effect after the suspension period.
Court disposition
Application for directions answered; debtor only liable for monthly payments up to date of discharge order.
- The debtor is only liable to pay the monthly sum of Sh. 20 up to the 12th November, 1943.
Source and reliance status
East African Court of Appeal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
East African Court of Appeal
Judgment
BANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION
Before BARTLEY, J.
Re: CONCEICAO PIEDADE JOANES, carrying on business as MORGAN & Co., Bankrupt
Cause No. 38 of 1937
Bankruptcy—Effect of order of discharge being made but suspended for a stated period on a previous order for payment of monthly sum to the Official Receiver.
The facts appear sufficiently from the directions given to the Official Receiver.
Held (15-5-44).—That if during bankruptcy proceedings a bankrupt is ordered to pay a monthly<br>sum to the Official Receiver on a subsequent order of discharge being made subject to a period of suspension if the order of discharge contains no order for the continuation of the payment of the monthly sum previously ordered to be paid the bankrupt is only liable to pay the monthly sum up to the date of the order suspending the discharge.
This is an application by the Official Receiver for directions. The facts are that on the 29th September, 1939, the debtor was ordered to pay Sh. 20 per month to the Official Receiver during his bankruptcy commencing as from the 15th October, 1939. The debtor paid instalments up to and including the month of August, 1943, Instalments from that date have not been paid.
On the 12th November, 1943, on the application of the debtor this Court made an order of discharge but suspended it for a period of three years. The question for decision is whether the debtor is liable to pay the Sh. 20 per month up to the date on which the order of discharge takes effect, i.e. the 12th November, 1946, or whether he is only liable to pay that sum monthly up to the date of the order granting the discharge subject to suspension. I have not to decide whether or not this Court in granting the discharge could have made an order suspending it for three years and also ordering the debtor to continue paying Sh. 20 per month. The Court did not make any such order. In granting the discharge the Court inflicted a punishment by suspending the discharge for three years and in view of the decision in *in re Gold ex parte Gold* 8 Morrell 45 in my view the debtor is only liable to pay the Sh. 20 per month up to the 12th November, 1943.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.