https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11458

Rao (Administrator of Midland Hauliers Ltd) v Kotecha & another (Insolvency Petition E008 of 2019) [2026] KEHC 11458 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (28 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 11458 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts) Commercial and Tax Insolvency Petition E008 of 2019 RC Rutto, J July 28, 2026 Between Ponangipalli Venkata Ramana Rao (Administrator Of Midland Hauliers Ltd) Applicant and Jayesh Kotecha 1st Respondent Sweta Jayesh Kotecha 2nd Respondent Ruling 1.Before the court for determination is the Notice of Motion dated 26th January, 2026, in which the Applicant seeks orders that the Administrator’s mandate, due to expire on 29th January, 2026, be extended for a further six months, or for such period as the court may deem fit, pending the hearing and determination of Civil Appeal No. E285 of 2025 Nairobi; NCBA Bank Kenya Plc versus PVR Rao & Another, Milimani MCCRC E632 of 2021: Republic v Jayesh Kumar Prabhundas Kotecha & 3 others and Milimani HCCR Revision E117 of 2025; The Republic versus Jayesh Kotecha Prabhudas and M/S Midland Hauliers Limited. The Applicant also seeks costs of the application. 2.The application is supported by the affidavit of the Administrator, Ponangipalli Venkata Ramana Rao, sworn on 26th January, 2026. The Administrator depones that the administration remains incomplete owing to pending litigation affecting the company's assets and that an extension of the Administration is necessary to enable him discharge his statutory duties under the Insolvency Act. 3.The Administrator states that by an order issued on 29th July, 2025, the court extended his tenure as Administrator for 6 months pending the determination of an earlier application for extension and the delivery of a ruling in proceedings concerning the recovery of Kshs. 25,000,000/= from NCBA Bank Kenya. He avers that the court subsequently ordered the Bank to refund the said amount to the company after finding that the funds had been withdrawn by the Company’s directors without his authority as Administrator. He further states that the Bank lodged Civil Appeal No. E285 of 2025 and obtained an order of stay of execution on condition that it deposits the decretal amount as security, which condition has since been complied with. According to the Administrators, the appeal remains pending and its outcome will have a direct bearing on the assets available for realization and distribution to creditors. 4.The Administrator further depones that, he is involved, through the debenture holder, in criminal proceedings against the 1st Respondent, relating to the alleged unlawfully conversion and transfer of the company's assets during the subsistence of the administration. He states that although the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions sought to discontinue the proceedings, the trial court declined the request and directed that the matter proceed to hearing. He further states that, the Director of Public Prosecutions subsequently filed High Court Criminal Revision No. E117 of 2025 seeking to challenge that decision and that he has applied to be joined in the revision proceedings to assert his rights as a victim under the Victim Protection Act. According to the Administrator, his application for joinder remains pending and, in the absence of an extension of the administration period, he may be unable to continue representing the Company’s interest in the said proceedings. 5.The Administrator further avers that substantial progress has been made in the administration of the company. He states that he has realised Kshs. 28,482,608.67/=, from the sale of 42 motor vehicles and that a further 41 vehicles remain available for disposal. It is his position that although the administration is well advanced, additional time is required to conclude the realization of the remaining assets and to finalise the pending court proceedings. He therefore contends that an extension of the administration period is necessary to facilitate the completion of the administration process and to safeguard the interest of the company’s creditors. He urges that the Respondents will suffer no prejudice if the orders sought are granted, whereas a denial of the orders sought would occasion substantial prejudice to the administration process and the company's stakeholders. 6.Pursuant to the court’s directions issued on 29th January, 2026, the administrator filed a progress report by way of an affidavit sworn on 11th June, 2026. In the report, he outlines the steps taken in the administration, including the realization of the Company's assets and the status of the pending litigation. He maintains that while substantial progress has been achieved, the administration remains incomplete owing to the unresolved proceedings and the need to realize the remaining assets, and consequently reiterates his request for an extension of the administration period. 7.The application, is opposed. The 1st Respondent, a director of Midland Hauliers Limited, swore a Replying Affidavit on 19th June, 2026, contending that the application lacks either legal or factual foundation. He depones that the Administrator was appointed on 24th April, 2019, at the instant of Prime Bank Limited and that administration, being a temporary statutory measure, ought not to be prolonged indefinitely. According to the 1st Respondent, the administration has long exceeded the period contemplated under the Insolvency Act and, despite previous extensions granted by the court, the Administrator has failed to achieve the statutory objectives of administration. 8.The 1st Respondent argues that the Administrator has misconstrued the objectives of administration under the Insolvency Act by focusing primary on the realization of assets while making no meaningful effort to rescue the Company as a going concern or achieve a better outcome for the creditors than would be obtained in liquidation. He further contends that the Administrator failed to prepare and share proposals to creditors as required by Section 566 of the Insolvency Act and has not demonstrated the existence of any viable restructuring or rescue strategy. According to the 1st Respondent, the Company's business operations have ceased during the administration, all employees have been disengaged, and no effort has been made to revive the Company's operations. In his view, these demonstrates that the Administrator has not discharged his obligations and renders him unsuitable to continue. 9.The 1st Respondent further contends that the pendency of various court proceedings does not constitute sufficient justification for extending the administration. He argues that the Administrator has merely cited ongoing litigation without demonstrating how such proceedings prevent the completion of his statutory mandate. In his view, many of the proceedings were initiated by the Administrator and concern disputes with directors or third parties rather than matters essential to the administration of the Company. 10.The 1st Respondent also disputes the administrator's assertion that interference with access to certain premises situated on L.R. No. 209/16791, Kyang'ombe Road hindered the administration. He maintains that the property belongs to Midland Investments (KSM) Limited, a separate legal entity, and that court orders issued in relation thereto did not confer possession upon the Administrator. He further states that the Administrator had previously directed that the company’s vehicles be moved to alternative locations and therefore could not legitimately attribute delays in the administration to lack of access to the premises. 11.The 1st Respondent also challenges the Administrator's account of the progress made in the administration. He avers that the Company's directors fully cooperated with both the Administrator and the debenture holder by disclosing the Company's assets and providing information concerning its vehicles, debtors and creditors. He contends that Prime Bank's security did not extend to all the Company's assets and that this position was communicated to the Administrator from the outset. He further argues that, despite having been furnished with details of debtors allegedly owing the Company in excess of Kshs. 70 million, the Administrator has taken no meaningful steps to recover those sums and has instead concentrated on the disposal of motor vehicles. 12.The 1st Respondent denies allegations that the directors concealed Company assets, transferred vehicles outside the jurisdiction, and failed to provide information concerning the Company's statement of affairs in line with Section 564 and 565 of Insolvency Act. He maintains that all relevant information was supplied to the Administrator and that any alleged deficiencies related only to the form in which the information was presented rather than its substance. He further contends that investigations initiated by the Administrator remain inconclusive and cannot, without more, be relied upon to justify the continuation of the administration. 13.The 1st Respondent additionally disputes the Administrator's assertions regarding the conduct of creditors' meetings and reiterates that the pending dispute concerning funds held by NCBA Bank Kenya PLC remains before the Court of Appeal. He contends that the Administrator's continued engagement in litigation against the Company's directors demonstrates a departure from the statutory purposes of administration. 14.With respect to the realization of assets, the 1st Respondent avers that the Administrator has had custody and control of the Company's vehicles for several years pursuant to court orders. He attributes the deterioration in the value of some of those assets to the prolonged administration and asserts that the Administrator has failed to preserve the Company's assets effectively. In his view, the work said to remain outstanding largely comprises litigation and asset-tracing efforts which, after several years, have produced little tangible benefit to creditors. 15.Concerning the criminal proceedings relied upon by the Administrator, the 1st Respondent states that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions sought to discontinue the prosecution on the basis that the dispute was substantially civil in nature. He contends that this position underscores the fact that the Administrator has extended his involvement beyond the proper scope of the administration process. 16.In conclusion, the 1st Respondent contends that the administration has already been extended on several occasions without achieving its intended objectives. He argues that a further extension would only perpetuate an administration that has been in place for approximately seven years, to the detriment of the Company and its stakeholders. He therefore urges the Court to decline the application and bring the administration to an end. 17.In response, the Administrator filed a Further Affidavit sworn on 25th June, 2026. He disputes the allegation that the delay in concluding the administration is attributable to any failure on his part and contends that it has instead been occasioned by persistent resistance and non-cooperation by the Company's directors since the commencement of the administration. 18.He depones that immediately following his appointment in April 2019, the directors challenged the administration proceedings, resulting in interim orders that delayed the execution of his mandate. According to the Administrator, despite the administration remaining in force after the lapse of the interim orders, the directors continued to disregard his authority and undertook transactions affecting the Company's assets without his knowledge or consent. 19.The Administrator further alleges that the directors interfered with the administration process by removing and transferring Company assets without authority, withdrawing funds from the Company's bank accounts, and frustrating efforts to realise assets under administration. He states that some of the impugned transactions were reported to the banking fraud investigation unit for investigation and that such actions substantially impeded his efforts to preserve and realise the Company's assets. It is his position that the challenges encountered throughout the administration have significantly contributed to the delay in completing the process. 20.The Administrator also addresses the dispute concerning the Kyang'ombe Road premises, contending that third parties unlawfully interfered with property where the Company's vehicles were being stored and removed certain assets while they were under administration. He states that the matter was reported to both the police and the debenture holder and that subsequent court proceedings were instituted in relation to the recovery and preservation of the assets. He relies on those events as further evidence of the obstacles he encountered in exercising his statutory functions. 21.The Administrator therefore maintains that the administration has been hampered by continuous interference from the directors and third parties, rather than by any inefficiency on his part. He states that meaningful asset realisation only became possible after considerable efforts to overcome those impediments and that, having made substantial progress, additional time is required to conclude the administration. He accordingly urges the Court to extend his tenure to enable him complete the administration process. 22.With regard to the pending litigation, the Administrator disputes the 1st Respondent's contention that the proceedings are unrelated to the administration. He maintains that the various matters identified in his supporting affidavit directly concern the recovery, preservation and control of the Company's assets and will ultimately affect the estate available for distribution to creditors. 23.In particular, the Administrator states that the pending appeals arising from proceedings against NCBA Bank Kenya PLC and the 1st Respondent concern the recovery of funds allegedly withdrawn from the Company's account during the subsistence of the administration. He contends that the sums in question constitute a significant asset of the Company and that the determination of the appeals will have a direct bearing on the assets available to the estate. 24.The Administrator further avers that Milimani Chief Magistrate's Criminal Case No. E632 of 2021 and High Court Criminal Revision No. E117 of 2025 concern alleged unlawful dealings with the Company's assets during the administration. He states that he is a material witness in those proceedings and that their outcome may affect the recovery and preservation of assets belonging to the Company. He further notes that judgment in Criminal Revision No. E117 of 2025 was scheduled for delivery on 22nd July, 2026. 25.With regard to Milimani HCCC No. E399 of 2020, Kisumu HCCC No. E004 of 2022 and Kisumu Civil Appeal No. E078 of 2023, the Administrator contends that the proceedings concern properties on which several of the Company's assets are located and, consequently, bear directly on his ability to access, preserve and realise those assets. He therefore maintains that the pending litigation forms an integral part of the administration process recovering, preserving and of realising the company's assets for the benefit of its creditors and supports his request for an extension of the administration period. 26.The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Applicant’s submissions are dated 29th June, 2026, while the 1st Respondent’s submissions are dated 26th June, 2026. Counsel highlighted the submissions on 2nd July, 2026. Applicant’s submissions 27.The Applicant submits that the delay in concluding the administration is attributable not to any omission on the part of the Administrator but to continued resistance and non-cooperation by the Company's directors. It is argued that although the Administrator was appointed in April 2019, his appointment was immediately challenged in court, resulting in proceedings and interim orders that delayed the effective commencement of the administration. The Administrator contends that even after the administration was confirmed, the directors continued to interfere with the process by dealing with Company assets without his authority, concealing and transferring assets, denying him access to certain assets and otherwise frustrating the discharge of his statutory functions. He therefore maintains that meaningful administration only became possible after the resolution of the various legal challenges and obstacles that had impeded his work. 28.The Applicant further submits that the various civil and criminal proceedings referred to in the application arose directly from efforts to preserve and recover Company assets. In particular, he relies on proceedings relating to the recovery of funds allegedly withdrawn from the Company's bank accounts during the administration and criminal proceedings concerning the alleged unlawful disposal and transfer of Company assets. According to the Administrator, those matters were necessitated by the conduct of the directors and have materially affected both the progress and completion of the administration. 29.On the applicable legal framework, the Applicant submits that the Court's power to extend an administrator's term is derived from section 594 of the Insolvency Act. He further relies on Re TPS Investments (UK) Ltd (In Administration) [2020] BCC 437, which identifies four relevant considerations in determining an application for extension, namely: why the administration has not been completed; whether another insolvency regime would be more suitable; whether the extension would achieve the purpose of administration; and if so, the appropriate duration of any extension granted. 30.Addressing those considerations, the Applicant submits that the administration remains incomplete primarily because of the numerous impediments encountered in tracing, recovering and preserving the Company's assets. He argues that the directors' conduct substantially delayed the administration and that they cannot rely on delays occasioned by their own actions to oppose the extension sought. In support of that position, reliance is placed on Nabro Properties Limited v Sky Structures Limited, Z.R. Shah & Southfork Investments Ltd [1986] KECA 92 (KLR) and Shangavi & Another; Gadhoke (Interested Party) (Insolvency Cause E016 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 21450 (KLR). 31.Turning to the second consideration, the Applicant submits that no alternative insolvency regime is likely to yield a better outcome for creditors than the continuation of the administration. He contends that substantial progress has already been made in tracing, recovering and realising the Company's assets and that it would therefore be in the interests of creditors to permit the administration process to continue to its conclusion. 32.On the third consideration, the Applicant maintains that the extension sought will enable the statutory objectives of administration to be achieved. He relies on the Administrator's reports filed in 2024, 2025 and 2026 as demonstrating significant progress in the recovery and realisation of assets. According to the Administrator, a substantial number of motor vehicles have already been recovered and sold, with only a limited number remaining for disposal. It is therefore submitted that the administration is at an advanced stage and that additional time is required to complete the realisation process and conclude the administration. 33.On the duration of the extension sought, the Applicant submits that a further period of twelve months is reasonable and necessary to enable the Administrator complete the outstanding tasks and bring the administration to a successful conclusion. The Court is accordingly urged to allow the application. Respondent’s submissions 34.The Respondent identified a single issue for determination, namely whether the court should extend the term of the administrator of the Applicant and for how long. They submit that despite numerous previous extensions, granted by the court, the Administrator has failed to achieve the objectives of administration and that no further extension is warranted. 35.In support of their position, the Respondents place reliance on In re Copia Kenya Limited (Under Administration) (Insolvency Notice E106 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 5926 (KLR) and Cape Holdings Limited (Under Administration) v Synergy Industrial Credit Limited; I&M Bank Limited (Creditor); Registrar of Companies (Interested Party) (Insolvency Cause E049 of 2021) [2023] KEHC 18685 (KLR). They further submit that they adopted the principles set out in Re TPS Investments (UK) Ltd (In Admin.) [2020] BCC 437, which identified four questions that ought to guide the Court in determining whether an administrator's term should be extended, as earlier alluded to The Respondents organise their submissions around those four considerations. 36.On the first consideration, the Respondents contend that the Administrator has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the prolonged administration. They argue that although the Administrator attributed to various court proceedings, many of those proceedings commenced more than 2 years after his appointment and are wholly unrelated to the administration of Midland Hauliers Limited. According to the Respondents, the critical question remains what the Administrator did during the first year following his appointment in 2019 before those proceedings were instituted. They therefore contend that, absent a satisfactory explanation for that period of inactivity, the application for extension cannot succeed. 37.As regards the suitability of alternative insolvency processes, the Respondents submit that the administration should be brought to an end and the management of the Company restored to its directors. They contend that the administration has not achieved its intended objectives and that continuation of the process is unlikely to yield any better outcome. 38.The Respondents further submit that the Administrator has demonstrated no exceptional circumstances justifying any further extension. Relying on In Re Copia Kenya Limited (Under Administration), they argue that Parliament intended administration to be a strictly time-bound process leading either to the rescue of company or an orderly transition into liquidation within a relatively short period. They contend that neither objective has been achieved in the present case and that the recoveries realised over the course of the administration do not amount to substantial progress when viewed against the duration of the process. 39.Consequently, the Respondents maintain that no further extension is likely to enable the Administrator to attain the objectives contemplated under Section 522 of the Insolvency Act. In their view, the administration has ceased to serve any useful purpose and should not be prolonged further. 40.Regarding the duration of any extension, the Respondents submit that no extension should be granted. They argued that the continued administration has become gravely prejudicial to both the Company's owners and its creditors. They argue that the prolonged administration has sterilized the Company by keeping it in an indefinite state of suspension, resulted in the destruction rather than preservation of asset value and prevented any meaningful commercial recovery. For those reasons, they urge the Court to dismiss the application and terminate the administration. Analysis and Determination 41.I have carefully considered the Notice of Motion, the affidavits filed in support thereof, the Administrator's progress reports, the Replying Affidavit sworn on behalf of the 1st Respondent, the Administrator's Further Affidavit in response, together with the rival submissions of counsel. In my view, the single issue arising for determination is whether the Applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant a further extension of the administration of Midland Hauliers Limited. 42.The application is principally anchored on Sections 593 and 594 of the Insolvency Act. Those provisions contemplate that administration is intended to be a temporary insolvency measure and not a perpetual state of affairs. The law nevertheless recognizes that circumstances may arise which render the completion of administration within the prescribed period impracticable. For that reason, the Court is granted jurisdiction to extend the term of an administrator where sufficient cause is shown. Such power is discretionary and must be exercised judicially upon consideration of the particular circumstances of each case, the statutory objectives of administration and the interests of the creditors, the company and other stakeholders. 43.Both parties have substantially relied on the principles articulated in Re TPS Investments (UK) Ltd (In Administration) [2020] BCC 437 and adopted by our courts in Cape Holdings Limited (Under Administration) v Synergy Industrial Credit Limited; I&M Bank Limited (Creditor); Registrar of Companies (Interested Party) (Insolvency Cause E049 of 2021) [2023] KEHC 18685 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (9 June 2023) (Ruling); as well as In re Copia Kenya Limited (Under Administration) (Insolvency Notice E106 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 5926 (Commercial and Tax) (23 April 2026) (Ruling). Those authorities identify four principle considerations namely; why the administration has not been completed, whether another insolvency regime would be more suitable, whether the proposed extension is likely to achieve the statutory purpose of administration and, if so, the appropriate duration of such extension. These considerations are aspects of the broader inquiry whether sufficient cause has been demonstrated to justify the Court's intervention. 44.The Respondents' opposition is founded upon the contention that the administration has persisted for approximately 7 years without achieving the statutory objectives contemplated under Section 522 of the Insolvency Act. According to them, administration was intended to rescue the company as a going concern or at the very least, produce a better outcome for creditors than liquidation. They contend that neither objective has been realised. They argue that the company has ceased operations, its employees have been laid off and its assets have steadily depreciated during the period of administration. 45.They further contend that the Administrator has concentrated almost exclusively on selling motor vehicles instead of pursuing a genuine strategy for corporate rescue and that no meaningful proposal under Section 566 of the Insolvency Act was ever prepared, circulated to creditors or implemented and that the prolonged administration has become oppressive both to the directors and to creditors. Consequently, they urge the court to bring the administration to an end rather than prolong it by granting yet another extension. 46.These concerns are not without substance. Administration was never intended to be an indefinite process. The passage of a considerable period since the Administrator's appointment necessarily invites close judicial scrutiny. The Court must be satisfied not only that the administration continues to serve a legitimate statutory purpose, but also that there remains a realistic prospect of achieving the objectives for which the administration was commenced. Mere passage of time cannot, however, be the sole determinant. The Court must examine the reasons advanced for the delay and determine whether the evidence supports the conclusion that the prolonged administration has resulted from inactivity on the part of the Administrator or by circumstances materially affecting the effective execution of his mandate. 47.Having considered the material placed before the Court, I am unable to agree with the Respondents' submission that the delay is attributable solely, or even principally, to indolence or inefficiency on the part of the Administrator. The record reveals that from the inception of the administration the Administrator's authority was itself challenged, resulting in litigation, interim orders and negotiations that delayed the effective implementation of the administration. While such proceedings did not entirely suspend the administration indefinitely, it cannot be ignored that they significantly affected the Administrator's ability to assume effective control of the Company's affairs during the formative stages of the process. 48.More importantly, the evidence before the Court demonstrates that a substantial portion of the administration has been devoted to the preservation and recovery of assets said to have been dealt with during the subsistence of the administration. In particular, proceedings relating to the recovery of over Kshs. 25 million withdrawn from the Company's account culminated in a judgment in favour of the Company, the execution of which has since been stayed pending determination of appeals before the Court of Appeal. The sums in issue are substantial and, if ultimately recovered, will materially augment the estate available for the benefit of the directors and creditors. It cannot therefore be reasonably argued that those proceedings are collateral or unrelated to the administration. On the contrary, they go to the very heart of the asset pool that the Administrator is duty-bound to preserve and realize, this having been necessitated by the continued attempts by the Respondents as directors to circumvent the administration. 49.The same may be said of the criminal proceedings and related revision proceedings arising from allegations concerning the transfer and disposition of Company assets during the administration. Without expressing any view on the merits of those proceedings, it is evident that they concern matters directly touching on the control, preservation and recovery of assets said to belong to the Company during the subsistence of the administration. Their existence therefore forms part of the broader context within which the administration has been conducted. 50.Equally significant is the progress report filed by the Administrator in June 2026. Unlike the position that was obtained when the matter was last before the Court, the report demonstrates continuing realization of assets. The evidence presently before the Court indicates that eighty-five (85) motor vehicles have been disposed of, leaving a relatively limited number yet to be realised. Gross recoveries have increased substantially and detailed schedules have been provided identifying both realized and outstanding assets. While the Respondents characterize these recoveries as inadequate, the evidence does not support the conclusion that the administration has stalled or become entirely dormant. To the contrary, it demonstrates measurable progress towards completion. 51.I also find considerable relevance in the administrator's explanation regarding the difficulties encountered in securing possession of company assets. His evidence is that access to vehicles and storage yards was repeatedly interrupted by disputes involving third parties including the litigation concerning the Kyang'ombe premises, allegations of removal of vehicles by third parties, resistance encountered during realization exercises and numerous court proceedings relating to possession of company assets. Whether every allegation ultimately proves correct is not the question presently before this court. The relevant inquiry is whether those matters objectively demonstrate that the administration has encountered genuine practical obstacles beyond the ordinary course of insolvency administration. In my view, they do. 52.The Respondents have criticised the Administrator for allegedly failing to pursue certain debt recoveries said to exceed Kshs.70 million. In addition, they fault the administrator for only focusing on the realization of assets and disposal of motor vehicles. To them, the administration process has mutated to liquidation and the administrator has not demonstrated any efforts to maintain the company as a going concern. Instead, the administrator is faulted for bringing the company to a standstill through wastage of assets, ceasing of operations and relieving of employees from their duties at the company. 53.This criticism carries legitimate concern. Administration process is supposed to be a better substitute to leaving the company under the control of its directors. The administrators ought to remain accountable for their actions, to demonstrate their continued engagement. Questions regarding the prudence or efficacy of the administrator's decisions should be subject to the court intervention as the administrator exercises fiduciary duty. Such questions as may ultimately arise, should be dealt with upon the conclusion of the administration and during the rendering of accounts. In the present case, the Respondents other than through response to this application have not demonstrated any serious misgivings with any particular action of the administrators. Be that as it may, and standing alone, this grievance does not outweigh the evidence showing that the administration is underway including the presence of pending recovery and other court proceedings. 54.Equally, I am not persuaded by the Respondents' submission that restoring the company to its directors presently constitutes a preferable insolvency outcome. The material before court reveals that there remains pending litigation directly concerning the control, recovery and realization of company assets and which the administrator is actively representing the interest of the company. Terminating the administration at this stage would inevitably create uncertainty regarding the conduct of those proceedings and may prejudice the interests of creditors whose protection is a central objective of the administration regime. 55.That said, the Court must remain vigilant against the danger of administration becoming perpetual. An extension is not automatically granted merely because litigation remains pending. Insolvency proceedings must ultimately achieve finality. The Administrator must therefore continue to pursue realization of the remaining assets with diligence, actively prosecute the pending recovery proceedings and ensure that parties are kept adequately informed of the progress of the administration. 56.Taking the totality of the evidence into account, I am satisfied that the Applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause for a further extension. I am persuaded that the administration has not stalled through inaction or omission. Rather, the evidence discloses ongoing realization of assets, substantial pending recovery proceedings, appellate litigation involving significant sums, and unresolved disputes concerning Company property. These matters remain directly connected to the statutory purposes of administration and justify allowing the administrator a limited further opportunity to complete the process. 57.I am not, however, persuaded that the full period of twelve months sought is necessary. The progress presently reported, the reduced number of assets remaining for disposal and the need for continued judicial oversight persuade me that a shorter extension is appropriate. In my view, a period of six (6) months is reasonable and strikes a proper balance between enabling the Administrator to conclude the outstanding aspects of the administration or at the very least, place before the court a comprehensive final report demonstrating why any further extension would exceptionally be required. 58.Consequently, the Notice of Motion dated 26th January, 2026, succeeds to the extent that the period of administration of Midland Hauliers Limited is extended for a further six (6) months from 29th July, 2026. 59.The Administrator shall, before the expiry of the said period, file a comprehensive report detailing the progress made in the realization of the remaining assets, the status of the pending proceedings and the steps taken towards the conclusion of the administration. The report should take into account the Respondents’ concerns including the viability of the company as a going concern as a result of the administration, efforts taken to realize debts owed to the company by debtors, the accounts and timelines for conclusion of the administration process bearing in mind the interests of the creditors and the directors. 60.Costs of the application shall be in the administration. 61.Orders accordingly. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED VIRTUALLY THIS 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2026RHODA RUTTOJUDGECourt Assistant: Wabwire