[2019] KEHC 1814 (KLR)
The court found that the 1st appellant is undergoing insolvency proceedings in Spain, which have been recognized by the High Court as foreign main proceedings. Under Section 22(a) of the Insolvency Act, 5th Schedule, this recognition triggers an automatic stay of all legal proceedings against the appellant,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 1814 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Isolux Ingeniera S.A.; Appellant: Andres Alvares Gonzales; Respondent: Eng Paul Mutemi t/a Nyikaland International Technologies Group
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 277 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Motion to Strike Out Appeal and Release Funds
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Insolvency Proceedings, Stay of Proceedings, Recognition of Foreign Judgments, Appeal Striking Out
- 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
Isolux Ingeniera S.A.
Appellant
Andres Alvares Gonzales
Appellant
Eng Paul Mutemi t/a Nyikaland International Technologies Group
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Motion to Strike Out Appeal and Release Funds
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be struck out for failure to file the record of appeal within the prescribed timeline.
- 2 Whether the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings in Spain operates as an automatic stay of the current appeal.
- 3 Whether the appellants have locus standi to prosecute the appeal during ongoing insolvency proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the 1st appellant is undergoing insolvency proceedings in Spain, which have been recognized by the High Court as foreign main proceedings. Under Section 22(a) of the Insolvency Act, 5th Schedule, this recognition triggers an automatic stay of all legal proceedings against the appellant, including the current appeal. As a result, the appellants are statutorily barred from taking any steps in the appeal until the insolvency proceedings are concluded. Consequently, the respondent's application to strike out the appeal and release funds cannot succeed, as the appellants' inability to prosecute the appeal is due to the operation of law, not any fault or delay on their...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The respondent's application dated 5th July, 2019 is dismissed.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 277 OF 2018
ISOLUX INGENIERA S.A.....................................................1ST APPELLANT
ANDRES ALVARES GONZALES.........................................2ND APPELLANT
-VERSUS-
ENG PAUL MUTEMI T/A NYIKALAND
INTENATIONAL TECHOLOGIES GROUP...........................RESPONDENT
RULING
1) The respondent took out the motion dated 5th July, 2019 in which it sought for the following orders:
i. THAT the application herein be struck out.
ii. THAT funds held in the joint bank account CIF Number 0176315 Reference 0020176315550151 at I&M Bank Limited in the names of Kaplan & Straton Advocates and Thuita Kiiru & Co. Advocates be released to the respondent’s bank account inclusive of the interest as detailed below.
Account Name: Nyikaland International
Technologies Group Ltd
Account Number 0230015025588201
Bank Ecobank Limited
Swift: RECOCKENA
Branch: 023 (Valley Arcade)
Bank Code: 043
iii. THAT the costs of this application be provided for.
The motion is supported by the affidavit of Paul Mutemi.
2) When served, the appellant filed grounds of opposition and thereplying affidavit of James Muthui to oppose the application.When this motion came up for interpartes hearing, learnedcounsels made oral submissions in support of the respective positions. I have considered the grounds stated on the face of the motion and the facts deponed in the affidavits filed in support and against the motion together with rival oral submissions.
It is the submission of the respondent that the appeal should be ordered struck out and dismissed on the basis that the Record of Appeal has not been filed within the timeline of 21 days given by this court. It is pointed out that the proceedings have been ready since the month of October 2018.
3) It is further argued that since the appellants obtained an order for stay of execution of the decree on 12th July 2018 they have never taken any step to have the appeal ready for hearing.
4) The appellants opposed the motion arguing that on 24th October 2018, the High Court made an order recognising ordinary insolvency proceedings 700/2017 in Spain in respect of the 1st appellant herein as foreign main proceedings by this court. It is argued that the fact that the 1st appellant is undergoing foreign insolvency proceedings that have been recognized by this court, this effectively stays the commencement or continuation of individual actions or proceedings in respect to the appellant including this appeal pending the conclusion of the insolvency proceedings.
5) The respondent was quite emphatic that the stay of all legal proceedings in respect to the appellants is automatic. The appellants also argued that the 1st appellant is still under receivership and therefore presently lacks the locus standi to prosecute this appeal since the insolvency proceedings in respect to the 1st appellant have to be concluded to enable it proceed with this appeal.
6) It is not in dispute that the 1st appellant is undergoing insolvency proceedings in Spain and that an Order appointing Data Concursal S.L.P as the single receiver in the ongoing insolvency proceedings has been issued.
7) The question which needs to be answered is what is the impact of this court’s recognition of the ordinary insolvencyproceedings 700/2017?
8) With respect, I am persuaded by the appellants’ argument that under Section 22(a) of the Insolvency Act, 5th Schedule that an automatic order of stay issues. I am therefore satisfied that the appellants’ hands are tied by the statute thus they cannot take any step until the insolvency proceedings are heard and determined.
9) It is therefore apparent that the respondent’s application cannot succeed. The same is ordered dismissed with each partybearing its own costs.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nairobi this 13th day of November, 2019.
...........................
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
........................... for the Appellant
......................... for the Respondent