[2010] KEHC 3628 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in registering the charge, as evidenced by the supporting affidavit and the urgency arising from the advancement of Kshs. 9 million by the chargee. The court exercised its discretion under section 102 of the Companies Act to grant an...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 3628 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Brinks Security Services Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 36 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- application granted
- Judges
- A. Ong’injo
- Legal Topics
- Company Charge Registration, Extension of Time, Companies Act Compliance
- 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
Brinks Security Services Limited
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to register a charge under section 102 of the Companies Act.
- 2 Whether the delay in registration of the charge is excusable under the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in registering the charge, as evidenced by the supporting affidavit and the urgency arising from the advancement of Kshs. 9 million by the chargee. The court exercised its discretion under section 102 of the Companies Act to grant an extension of 42 days for the delivery of the prescribed particulars of the charge for registration. The matter was uncontested, and the court was satisfied that the interests of justice would be served by allowing the extension.
Court Disposition
application granted
Orders
- Time for delivery of the prescribed particulars of the charge dated 25th September, 2009 in respect of L.R. No. 209/19424 together with the charge itself to the Registrar of Companies for registration under section 96 of the Companies Act is extended for a period of 42 days from the date of the order.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
Miscellaneous Application 36 of 2010
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY BRINKS SECURITY SERVICES
LIMITED
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR REGISTRATION OF A CHARGE
R U L I N G
This ruling relates to an ex-parte notice of motion application brought under section 102 of the Companies Act and Rule 8(b) of the Companies (High Court) Rules. The said application seeks the following orders:
1. THAT the time for the delivery of the prescribed particulars of a Charge dated the 25th September, 2009 in respect of its property comprised in the title of Land Reference Number 209/19424 together with the Charge itself to the Registrar of Companies for registration under Section 96 of the above Act be extended under the provisions of Section 102 of the above Act by a further 42 days from the date of issue of the order of this Honourable court or by such other period as this Honourable Court shall think fit.
2. THAT the costs of this application be provided for by a further forty five (45) days from the date of issue of this order.
During the hearing of the application the applicant’s counsel, Mr. Obwayo, submitted that they are seeking to extend the time for registration of the charge in relation to L.R. No. 209/19424. Further to the above, he also submitted that the application is supported by their affidavit. He conceded that there was a delay in registering this charge as shown in paragraph (5) of the affidavit. He also added that by the time that the charge was registered the period had already elapsed. According to him the urgency is that the chargee has already been advanced Kshs.9 million. Besides the above, he stated that it was imperative that the charge be lodged with the Registrar of Companies. He concluded his submissions by stating that this is a non-contentious matter where no respondent has been cited.
After carefully considering the application together with the annextures, I hereby grant the same in terms of prayer No. 1. Specifically, I hereby direct that the time for the delivery of the prescribed particulars of a charge dated 25th of September, 2009 in respect of its property comprised in the title of L.R. No. 209/19424 together with the charge itself to the Registrar of Companies for registration under section 96 of the above Act be extended for a period of 42 days from today.
Those are the orders of this court.
MUGA APONDI
JUDGE
Ruling read signed and delivered in open court in the presence of:
………………………………………………………Applicant’s Counsel
MUGA APONDI
JUDGE
5TH FEBRUARY 2010