[1938] EACA 174

[1938] EACA 174

The court held that once a discharge from bankruptcy has been absolutely refused, the bankrupt is precluded from making a fresh application for discharge. The only remedies available under section 100 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance, 1930 are review, rescission, variation, or appeal, none of which were pursued by the applicant. The court followed the authority of In Re Tobias & Co., Ex parte Tobias, which established that a de novo application for discharge cannot be entertained after an absolute refusal. The application was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and power to entertain it.

Citation
[1938] EACA 174
Parties
Debtor: Sharaf Din s/o Faquir Mohamed; Respondent: Official Receiver
Court
East African Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
1 January 1938
Case Number
Bankruptcy Cause No. 60 of 1928
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Application / Application for Discharge After Absolute Refusal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
Sheridan CJ
Legal Topics
Bankruptcy Discharge, Application De Novo, Absolute Refusal, Review and Appeal Procedure
Source Language
English
Commercial and Corporate Bankruptcy Discharge Application De Novo Absolute Refusal Review and Appeal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sharaf Din s/o Faquir Mohamed

Debtor

Official Receiver

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Application / Application for Discharge After Absolute Refusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a bankrupt whose discharge has been absolutely refused can apply de novo for discharge.
  2. 2 Whether the Bankruptcy Ordinance, 1930, section 100 provides any power to entertain a fresh application for discharge after absolute refusal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that once a discharge from bankruptcy has been absolutely refused, the bankrupt is precluded from making a fresh application for discharge. The only remedies available under section 100 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance, 1930 are review, rescission, variation, or appeal, none of which were pursued by the applicant. The court followed the authority of In Re Tobias & Co., Ex parte Tobias, which established that a de novo application for discharge cannot be entertained after an absolute refusal. The application was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and power to entertain it.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for discharge is dismissed.