Uganda Case Law

Mutesi In Re-a debtor

Mutesi In Re-a debtor (Bankruptcy Petition No. 5 of 2011) [2012] UGCommC 180 (28 February 2012)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Bankruptcy Petition No. 5 of 2011

The petitioner, Maria K Mutesi, committed an act of bankruptcy by presenting a bankruptcy petition and declaring her inability to pay debts. Arrest and detention in civil prison do not constitute completed execution under the Bankruptcy Act; therefore, the judgment creditor does not gain priority over other creditors. The High Court has the power to stay execution proceedings upon presentation of a bankruptcy petition, but the order of discharge under the Civil Procedure Act can only be granted by the court executing the decree, not the bankruptcy court. The petitioner's application for disch…

Source excerpt

• Bankruptcy Proceedings
• Receiving Order
• Acts Of Bankruptcy
• Stay Of Execution
• Creditor Priority

In the matter of a Petition for a receiving Order by Thomas I. Kato ( A Debtor)

In the matter of a Petition for a receiving Order by Thomas I. Kato ( A Debtor) (Bankruptcy Petition 13 of 2002) [2002] UGCommC 24 (11 October 2002)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Bankruptcy Petition 13 of 2002

Judge

Ogoola James, j

The High Court granted Thomas I. Katto a receiving order after finding he met the Bankruptcy Act requirements, but refused a stay of proceedings for lack of reasons.

• Bankruptcy Petition
• Receiving Order
• Debtor Initiated Bankruptcy
• Proof Of Indebtedness
• Acts Of Bankruptcy
• Bankruptcy-petition

In Re: Captain Reginald Frew Woodward, Debtor; Ex Parte: Petitioning Creditor Captain David Bryson Malaher

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)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Cause No. 3 of 1945

Judge

Lucie-Smith, J. (Kenya)

Bankruptcy petition allowed against a debtor for unpaid divorce damages, but further proceedings were stayed because his inability to pay was war-related.

• Bankruptcy Notice
• Receiving Order
• Enforcement Of Judgment
• Damages For Tort
• Stay Of Proceedings
• Bankruptcy

Re: Hassanali Hussein

Re: Hassanali Hussein (Cause No. 8 of 1936) [1943] EACA 83 (1 January 1943)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Cause No. 8 of 1936

Judge

Sheridan CJ

After annulment of a bankruptcy adjudication because the debtor had paid all debts, the court rescinded the receiving order and dismissed the petition.

• Bankruptcy Procedure
• Annulment Of Adjudication
• Payment Of Debts
• Receiving Order
• Petition Dismissal
• Bankruptcy-procedure

Markus v Czeczowiczka (C.A. 36/1933.)

Markus v Czeczowiczka (C.A. 36/1933.) [1937] EACA 17 (1 January 1937)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

C.A. 36/1933.

Judge

Abrahams CJ, Ag P (Uganda), Horne J, Sheridan CJ

The Court of Appeal held that under Order XIX, Rule 37, the power to commit a judgment debtor for non-payment of a decretal amount is limited to circumstances where there is an order to pay a specific sum that the debtor is shown to be capable of paying, and there is a refusal or neglect to pay that sum. The rule relates to the whole amount of the decree unless an instalment order is made. In the present case, there was no order for payment by instalments, and no sufficient evidence that the debtor had the means to pay the whole decretal amount. The English authority of In re Fryer, decided u…

Source excerpt

• Committal For Non Payment
• Receiving Order
• Judgment Debtor Examination
• Bankruptcy Proceedings
• Instalment Orders

In Re: Aleixo Conceicao Fernandes

In Re: Aleixo Conceicao Fernandes (Bankruptcy Cause No. 20/1936) [1936] EACA 143 (1 January 1936)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Bankruptcy Cause No. 20/1936

Judge

Lane, Ag. J

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

• Bankruptcy Notice
• Receiving Order
• Act Of Bankruptcy
• Salary Attachment
• Execution Of Decree

Czeczowiczka v Loy and Another (Appeals Nos. 89 and 90 of 1934 consolidated.)

Czeczowiczka v Loy and Another (Appeals Nos. 89 and 90 of 1934 consolidated.) [1936] EACA 5 (1 January 1936)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Appeals Nos. 89 and 90 of 1934 consolidated.

Judge

Lord Atkin

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.

• Bankruptcy Notice
• Receiving Order
• Attachment Of Debts
• Execution Of Judgments
• Imprisonment For Debt
• Bankruptcy-notice

Mohamed v El-Amri and Another (C.A. 8/1934)

Mohamed v El-Amri and Another (C.A. 8/1934) [1935] EACA 15 (1 January 1935)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

C.A. 8/1934

Judge

Abrahams CJ, Ag P (Uganda), Law, C.J (Zanzibar), Lucie-Smith Ag CJ (Kenya)

The court held that a receiving order under the Bankruptcy Ordinance requires facts justifying committal, and allowed appeal against both receiving and adjudication orders.

• Bankruptcy Proceedings
• Receiving Order
• Adjudication Order
• Execution Of Judgment
• Right Of Appeal
• Bankruptcy-proceedings

Walji v Official Receiver of the Bankrupt Estate of Kankubai Alladina Giga

Walji v Official Receiver of the Bankrupt Estate of Kankubai Alladina Giga (Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1927) [1927] EACA 4 (1 January 1927)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1927

Judge

Guthrie-Smith J, Pickering J, Tomlinson CJ

The majority of the Court of Appeal held that a receiving order made against a firm operates against all persons who were partners at the date of the order, even if their identity was unknown at the time. The court found that the Bankruptcy Act and Rules permit proceedings against a firm and that subsequent identification of a partner does not preclude adjudication against that partner individually. The court reasoned that a secret and undischarged partnership cannot defeat the just claim of a creditor, and that the receiving order and adjudication were valid against Jiwa Mulji as a partner.…

Source excerpt

• Bankruptcy Proceedings
• Partnership Liability
• Receiving Order
• Adjudication Of Bankruptcy