Download

Uganda Judgment

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Ssebanakitta v Kakira Sugar Works (CIVIL SUIT No. 84 OF 2007) [2017] UGHCCD 214 (31 August 2017)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the defendant company had initiated voluntary winding up in accordance with the Companies Act, having passed and registered the necessary resolution. Although notice of the resolution was not produced, lack of notice does not invalidate the proceedings but only attracts a default fine. The provisions of the Insolvency Act cited by the plaintiff were deemed inapplicable as they pertain to individuals, not companies. Consequently, under Section 97(1)(c) of the Companies Act, all legal proceedings against a company in liquidation must be stayed. The court therefore ordered a stay of proceedings pending the conclusion of the liquidation process.

Court disposition

proceedings_stayed

Orders

  • All proceedings against the defendant are stayed pending the conclusion of the liquidation process.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.

02

Material facts

Parties

Ssebanakitta Stephen

Plaintiff

Kakira Sugar Works

Defendant

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Suit / Preliminary Objection Ruling

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The defendant argues that it is undergoing voluntary winding up and, according to the law, all proceedings against the company or its property must be stayed until the liquidation process is concluded.
Respondent
The plaintiff contends that the defendant did not comply with sections 268-271 of the Companies Act regarding liquidation procedure and that under sections 120-123 of the Insolvency Act, a stay of proceedings is not automatic but requires an Interim Protection Order, which was not sought or granted.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Sections 268-271, Companies Act

    In voluntary winding up, a company must pass a special resolution, give notice in the gazette and newspaper, and register the resolution with the Registrar of Companies.

  2. 02

    Section 97(1)(c), Companies Act

    At the commencement of liquidation proceedings, execution or other legal process shall not be commenced or continued against the company or its property.

  3. 03

    Sections 120-123, Insolvency Act 14/2011

    Sections 120-123 of the Insolvency Act apply to insolvency of individuals, not companies.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the defendant company had initiated voluntary winding up in accordance with the Companies Act, having passed and registered the necessary resolution. Although notice of the resolution was not produced, lack of notice does not invalidate the proceedings but only attracts a default fine. The provisions of the Insolvency Act cited by the plaintiff were deemed inapplicable as they pertain to individuals, not companies. Consequently, under Section 97(1)(c) of the Companies Act, all legal proceedings against a company in liquidation must be stayed. The court therefore ordered a stay of proceedings pending the conclusion of the liquidation process.

Obiter and limits

  • Costs shall be in the cause.

Court disposition

proceedings_stayed

  • All proceedings against the defendant are stayed pending the conclusion of the liquidation process.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.

Source and reliance status

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Judgment

[2017] UGHCCD 214

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN AT JINJA CIVIL SUIT No. 84 OF 2007

SSEBANAKITTA STEPHEN

PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

KAKIRA SUGAR WORKS

DEFENDANT

BEFORE HON. JUSTICE MICHAEL ELUBU

RULING

At the commencement of the hearing of this suit, the defendant raised a preliminary point of law namely that the defendant is in the process of voluntarily winding up. To that end therefore the law requires that all proceedings or other legal processes shall not be commenced or continued against the company or its property.

In the result the Defendant prays for a stay of proceedings until the conclusion of the liquidation process.

The Plaintiff opposes this application on two fronts:

Firstly, that Sections $268 - 271$ of *The Companies' Act* were not complied with by the defendant when they initiated the liquidation. This part of the Act regulates the procedure for liquidation.

Secondly, that Sections 120 -123 of *The Insolvency Act* stipulate that a stay of proceedings is not automatic but that the court must grant an Interim Protection

$\mathbf{1}$

Order before the powers of the Directors are vested in the liquidators. It is his prayer that having failed to adhere to these provisions of the law the Preliminary Objection of the defendant cannot stand.

I have listened to the submissions of Counsel on both sides.

The issue here is whether the purported voluntary winding up of the defendant was proper, secondly whether the provisions of sections $120 - 123$ of the Insolvency Act were adhered to.

Sections 120 – 123 of *The Insolvency Act 14/2011* fall under Part V of The Act which deals with the Insolvency of Individuals and not companies. To that end therefore the provisions cited have no application in these proceedings as the defendant is an incorporated company.

With regard to the first aspect, whether S. 268 - 271 of *The Companies Act* were complied with, S. 268 requires that in voluntary winding up the company pass a special resolution for voluntary winding up; it shall then within 14 days give notice of the resolution in the gazette and in a newspaper; lastly the resolution shall be registered with the Registrar of Companies.

The defendant has filed in this court, resolutions of the share holders of the defendant in which it was agreed Kakira Sugar Works (1985) Ltd be voluntarily wound up. The resolution was lodged with the registrar on $16/10/2014$ .

I have not seen a copy of the notice. However under S.269 (3) of The Companies Act lack of notice does not invalidate the proceedings but attracts a default fine.

$\mathsf{Z}$

In the result, it would appear that the Defendant is in the process of a voluntary winding up.

That said, S.97 $(1)$ (c) of provides:

"At the commencement of liquidation proceedings, execution or other legal process shall not be commenced or continued and distress shall not be levied against the company or its property......"

I therefore find that the defendant is under liquidation. By virtue of the above provision legal process against a company in liquidation is supposed to be stayed. For that reason these proceedings are accordingly stayed pending the conclusion of the liquidation process.

Costs shall be in the cause.

....................................... MICHAEL ELUBU JUDGE 31/08/2017

$\overline{3}$

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Companies Act, Sections 268-271, Section 97(1)(c)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Insolvency Act 14/2011, Sections 120-123

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.