[2019] KEHC 7809 (KLR)
The court found that the application by the Official Receiver was misconceived because the winding up order made on 6th March 2006 was against Madhupaper International (Kenya) Limited, not Madhupaper International Limited. The anomaly in the company name was noted in the court record and by the Official Receiver,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 7809 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Samuel Njoroge Muchiri; Applicant: William Wokabi Karanja; Applicant: Joseph Monoru Muturi; Respondent: Madhupaper International (Kenya) Limited; Respondent: Samuel Kamau Macharia
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Winding Up Cause 12 of 1995
- Procedural Posture
- Winding Up Cause / Ruling on Notice of Motion Post Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Company Winding Up, Corporate Liquidation, Company Name Rectification
- 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
Samuel Njoroge Muchiri
Applicant
William Wokabi Karanja
Applicant
Joseph Monoru Muturi
Applicant
Madhupaper International (Kenya) Limited
Respondent
Samuel Kamau Macharia
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Winding Up Cause / Ruling on Notice of Motion Post Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the orders sought against Madhupaper International Limited and its directors can be granted when the winding up order was made against Madhupaper International (Kenya) Limited.
- 2 Whether the anomaly in the company name in the winding up order affects the enforceability of the orders sought by the Official Receiver.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application by the Official Receiver was misconceived because the winding up order made on 6th March 2006 was against Madhupaper International (Kenya) Limited, not Madhupaper International Limited. The anomaly in the company name was noted in the court record and by the Official Receiver, but no formal application had been made to rectify the name. As such, no orders could be made against Madhupaper International Limited or its directors based on a judgment that wound up a different legal entity. The court emphasized that the Official Receiver's continued pursuit of orders against the wrong entity was misguided and that the application could not succeed in the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 4th June 2018 is dismissed.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI COMMERCIAL & TAX DIVISION
WINDING UP CAUSE NO. 12 OF 1995
IN THE MATTER OF MADHUPAPER INTERNATIONAL (KENYA) LIMITED
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT
R U L I N G
1. By a Petition dated 27th March 1995 Samuel Njoroge Muchiri, William Wokabi Karanja and Joseph Monoru Muturi Petitioned this Court for the winding up of Madhupaper International Limited but some paragraphs of that Petition referred to the company sought to be wound up as Madhupaper International (Kenya) Limited.
2. This Court by its Judgment of 6th March 2006 made an order for Madhupaper International (Kenya) Limited to be wound up under the provisions of the Companies Act. It is many years ago, now 13 years later. Although there were intimation that the company intended to appeal the order of winding up it is not clear whether that appeal was ever filed.
3. Before Court and for consideration is a Notice of Motion dated 4th June 2018. It is filed by the Official Receiver. In the application the Official Receiver seeks orders that:
i. The Managing Director of Madhupaper International Limited do file a statement of affairs of the company with the Official Receiver.
ii. The Court do issue a warrant of arrest against the Managing Director of Madhupaper international limited, Samuel Kamau Macharia and the Officer in Charge of Station (OCS) Central Police Station Nairobi do facilitate the arrest.
iii. That the Court be pleased to extend the time within which to gazette the winding up order and convene a creditors meeting.
4. It is important to state that the Official Receiver had filed an application seeking exactly the orders sought in the present application which was dated 3rd May 2017. The Official Receiver withdrew that application, before Court, on 10th May 2018. It is not clear why the Official Receiver would re-file a duplicate of an application that was withdrawn.
5. The main opposition raised by Samuel Kamau Macharia, in his Replying Affidavit of 19th September 2018, is that the Judgment, herein, wound up Madhupaper International (Kenya) Limited but that he is a majority shareholder and Executive Chairman of a company known as Madhupaper International Limited and not Madhupaper International (Kenya) Limited that was wound up on 6th March 2006.
6. On my perusal of the Court file I came across a letter dated 1st November 2006 written by the Official Receiver to this Court. That letter stated:
“Dear Sir
RE: WINDING UP CAUSE NO.. 12 OF 1995
MADHUPAPER INTERNATIONAL LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
I wish to draw to your attention to the winding up order made on 6th day of March 2006.
The matter is titled as “MADHUPAPER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED”while the specific Court order (no. 1) makes a winding up order of “MADHUPAPER INTERNATIONAL (KENYA) LIMITED.”
The anomaly in names is inherent from the Petition dated 14th June 1995 that was presented for the winding up. Perhaps inadvertently this anomaly was not brought to the attention of the Judge at the time of making of the order.
I have perused the relevant Companies Registry file No. 14461 (reopened as C. 10/85) and noted that by a special resolution dated 16th May 19777 and filed on 24th May 1977 the company’s name was changed from Madhupaper International (Kenya) Limited toMadhupaper International Limited. This position was confirmed by Certificate of change o f name signed by the deputy Registrar of Companies dated 31st July 1985.
It is my considered opinion that the two sets of names do not refer to the same entity. Kindly make the necessary rectification to enable me proceed expeditiously with the winding up order.”
7. Although, when that file was placed before a Judge with that letter, direction were given for the Official Receiver to move the Court appropriately, to date no application has been made to correct the supposed anomaly.
8. It would follow that the application dated 4th June 2018, in view of what is stated above is misconceived. No orders can be made as sought against Madhupaper International Limited or against its Directors when the Judgment of this Court of 6th March 2006 wound up Madhupaper International (Kenya) Limited. Why the Official Receiver has continued to be so misguided for so long is not clear.
9. That as it may be, the application dated 4th June 2018 for the reasons set out above is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 8TH day of MAY, 2019.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
Ruling Read and Delivered in Open Court in the presence of:
Sophie........................................................COURT ASSISTANT
...................................................................FOR THE PETITIONERS
…………………………….......………....FOR THE COMPANY