[2004] KEHC 1640 (KLR)
The court determined that it had jurisdiction under Section 348 of the Companies Act and its inherent powers to grant directions to the receiver/manager regarding the sale of the remaining company property. The court found that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the sale, as all other properties...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 1640 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Patrick Maina Kamau; Respondent: Kenatco Transport Company Limited (In Receivership)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 203 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Directions by Receiver/manager
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Receivership, Company Property Sale, Court Directions, Debenture Enforcement
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Patrick Maina Kamau
Applicant
Kenatco Transport Company Limited (In Receivership)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Directions by Receiver/manager
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the receiver/manager should be granted leave to sell the remaining company property by public auction or private treaty.
- 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction under Section 348 of the Companies Act and its inherent powers to grant such directions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that it had jurisdiction under Section 348 of the Companies Act and its inherent powers to grant directions to the receiver/manager regarding the sale of the remaining company property. The court found that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the sale, as all other properties had been sold under the debenture except the subject property, and the debenture remained unsatisfied. The court further held that it was appropriate to grant leave for the sale by public auction or private treaty, subject to current valuation for forced sale purposes, to ensure the receivership was properly concluded and the interests of creditors were addressed. Accordingly,...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Leave is granted to the receiver/manager to sell, by public auction or private treaty (subject to current valuation for forced sale purposes), all that property known as sub-division number 2362 of Section VI Mainland North, Mombasa and sub-division number 2360 of Section VI, Mainland North, Mombasa.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MISC. CIVIL APPL. NO. 203 OF 2004
IN THE MATTER OF: KENATCO TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP)
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: THE COMPANIES’ ACT (CAP 486) OF THE LAWS OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: AN APPLICATION ON THE PART OF PATRICK MAINA KAMAU THE
RECEIVER/MANAGER OF KENATCO TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED FOR DIRECTIONS
URSUANT TO SECTION 348 OF THE COMPANIES ACT (CAP 486) OF THE LAWS OF KENYA
R U L I N G
1. The Applicant herein is Patrick Maina Kamau, joint receiver/manager of Kenatco Transport Company Ltd.
2. He seeks that this court, invoking powers granted by Section 345 of the Companies Act, Cap 486 and Rules 3 and 9 of the High Court Companies Rules should grant him leave to do the following:-
“Sell through public auction or private treaty (but subject to current valuation for forced sale purposes) all that property known as; sub -division number 2362 of Section VI Mainland North, Mombasa and sub -division number 2360 of Section VI, Mainland North, Mombasa.”
3. The reasons are that as receiver/manager, all other properties of Kenatco Trading Company Ltd. have been sold pursuant to a Debenture dated 20th July 1981 save the one mentioned above. The Applicant states in his Affidavit in support that it would serve no purpose if the company is wound up, yet the Debenture has not been satisfied, and there are properties belonging to the company that were not secured by the Debenture.
4. Initially I was not certain that Section 348 of the Companies Act which is with regard to the directions a court can give the receiver, would properly apply here. However, on further reflection I think that invoking that section together with the inherent powers of this court, and reading Clause 11 (1) of the Debenture dated 20. 7.1987, I should and I hereby grant the Applicant the prayers sought.
5. This court can give directions regarding the manner in which the remainder of the company’s property should be handled and in this case I think that for reasons given by the receiver/manager, the same should be sold. This court in any event can invoke its inherent power to ensure that the receivership comes to a tidy end.
6. In the event then, the Application dated 23rd February 2004 be and is hereby allowed.
7. Costs shall be in the cause.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 27th day of February 2004.
I. LENAOLA
Ag. JUDGE
27. 2.2004
Before Lenaola Ag. J.
Amos CC
Ruling read in the presence of: -
Mr. Wanjohi holding brief for Mr. Kimani for the Applicant.
I. LENAOLA
Ag. JUDGE