[2009] KEHC 361 (KLR)
The court found that the debtor failed to provide a credible explanation for his absence at the scheduled public examination. The evidence indicated that the debtor was served with notice well in advance and his claim of late receipt was improbable. The debtor's conduct demonstrated a lack of cooperation with the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 361 (KLR)
- Parties
- Debtor: Mburu Wambugi; Respondent: Official Receiver
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Bankruptcy Cause 121 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Bankruptcy Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Rescinding Order
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the official receiver
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Bankruptcy Procedure, Receiving Orders, Debtor Obligations
- 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
Mburu Wambugi
Debtor
Official Receiver
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Rescinding Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the debtor established sufficient grounds to set aside the order rescinding the receiving order.
- 2 Whether the debtor's failure to attend court was excusable under the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the debtor failed to provide a credible explanation for his absence at the scheduled public examination. The evidence indicated that the debtor was served with notice well in advance and his claim of late receipt was improbable. The debtor's conduct demonstrated a lack of cooperation with the official receiver and a disregard for statutory obligations under the Bankruptcy Act. The court concluded that the debtor had not established sufficient grounds to warrant the exercise of judicial discretion in his favour. Accordingly, the application to set aside the rescinding order was dismissed with costs to the official receiver.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the official receiver
Orders
- The debtor's application dated 19th August 2009 is dismissed with costs to the official receiver.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Bankruptcy Cause 121 of 2005
RE: MBURU WAMBUGI - DEBTOR
RULING
On 17th July 2009, this court rescinded the receiving order earlier issued on 15th October 2005, on application by the debtor. The court rescinded the receiving order after it was satisfied that the debtor had failed to attend court on the day the petition was listed for public examination. This was despite the debtor being served with the hearing notice to attend court by the official receiver. On 19th August 2009, the debtor sought to have the order rescinding the receiving order set aside on the grounds that he had received the said notice to attend court three (3) days after the scheduled hearing date had passed. In his affidavit in support of the application, the debtor stated that he has always been ready and willing to attend court for public examination. He was of the view that he would suffer prejudice if the said rescinding order is not set aside.
The official receiver was opposed to the application. Rhoda Rutto – Koech, a state counsel, swore a replying affidavit in opposition to the application. She deponed that the debtor was served with the hearing notice two (2) months prior to the date that was fixed for public examination. She did not buy the excuse offered by the debtor that he had received the registered letter notifying him of the date fixed for public examination after the scheduled date. She swore that since the receiving order was issued in 2005, the debtor had failed to come up with a suitable proposal despite several creditor meetings. She was of the view that the receiving order should not be reinstated.
I have carefully considered the rival arguments made by Miss Ouko for the debtor and by Mr. Mogere for the official receiver. Has the debtor established a case as to persuade this court exercise discretion in his favour and set aside the receiving order? I do not think so. The debtor’s failure to attend court on 17th July 2009 was the last straw that broke the camel’s back. I was not persuaded by the reason advanced by the debtor for his failure to attend court. It was improbable that he would have received the letter sent by registered post on 29th May 2009 on 20th July 2009. He must have received the said letter on an earlier date. The debtor’s failure to attend court appears to have been deliberate. As long as the debtor was enjoying the protection from creditors that was afforded to him by the receiving order, he was not prepared or willing to either cooperate with the official receiver by giving a suitable proposal or attend court during the date that was fixed for public examination. It is a legal requirement under Section 24 and 25 of the Bankruptcy Act for the debtor to cooperate with the official receiver in regard to the just determination of the bankruptcy cause.
In the present application, it was evident that the debtor held the mistaken view that once the receiving order was issued, he was free to disregard what was required of him by the law. It is for the above reasons that this court is not prepared to exercise its discretion in favour of the debtor. The debtor’s application dated 19th August 2009 is hereby dismissed with costs to the official receiver.
It is so ordered.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009.
L. KIMARU
JUDGE