Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Central Purchasing Co Ltd v Hon Col Kahinda Otafire (Bankruptcy Cause No. 23 of 2004) [2004] UGCommC 34 (11 October 2004)
The High Court held that failure to comply with a bankruptcy notice amounted to an act of bankruptcy because no valid counterclaim or set-off was shown.
In Re: Captain Reginald Frew Woodward, Debtor; Ex Parte: Petitioning Creditor Captain David Bryson Malaher (Cause No. 3 of 1945) [1945] EACA 65 (1 January 1945)
Bankruptcy petition allowed against a debtor for unpaid divorce damages, but further proceedings were stayed because his inability to pay was war-related.
Markus v Czeczowiczka (C.A. 34/1933.) [1937] EACA 34 (1 January 1937)
The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa set aside a bankruptcy notice where the creditor’s own conduct had hindered payment of the judgment debt.
In Re: Aleixo Conceicao Fernandes (Bankruptcy Cause No. 20/1936) [1936] EACA 143 (1 January 1936)
The court held that the existence of orders attaching the debtor's salary, which had not been implemented or realized upon, did not constitute a stay of execution within the meaning of section 3(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance, 1930. The creditor had not taken steps to serve the attachment orders on the debtor's employer, and thus the orders were in abeyance and ineffective. The debtor had failed to comply with the bankruptcy notices and had not satisfied the Court as to any counter-claim or set-off. The court found that the requirements for an act of bankruptcy were met, and that the credi…
Source excerpt
Czeczowiczka v Loy and Another (Appeals Nos. 89 and 90 of 1934 consolidated.) [1936] EACA 5 (1 January 1936)
The Privy Council restored Kenyan bankruptcy notices and a receiving order, holding that German attachment orders did not prevent the debtors from pursuing remedies and did not bar execution.
In Re: Mota Singh (No Case No.) [1934] EACA 20 (1 January 1934)
The court held a bankruptcy notice invalid because it included execution costs beyond the judgment debt. The defect was not amendable under the Ordinance.
