Ruling:
1. I have considered the Notice of Motion application dated 14 October 2022 together with the affidavit sworn in support sworn on even date, the submissions of counsel, and the relevant law.
2. The applicant is seeking to set aside the statutory demand dated 21st September, 2022. The application is not opposed and to date, no replying affidavit was filed. I note that an affidavit was filed by the respondent, this morning, and mid-way through the present proceedings, after two entire years since service of the application.
3. Counsel for the respondent however stated that he was not in a position to respond the application, and he could not speak in opposition to the same.
4. The basis of the application is that the debt which is the subject of the statutory demand is disputed on grounds that are substantial. The applicant relied on Regulation 17 of the Insolvency Regulations 2016 in support of its argument and contended that in the present matter, the debt is disputed.
5. It is trite that liquidation proceedings ought not to be preferred in a case where the petitioner has an available remedy by way of filing a filing a claim in court for an alleged debt, and moreover, that at a disputed debt on substantial and bona fide grounds cannot be the subject of winding up proceedings.
6. The applicant’s contention is uncontroverted and accordingly the application is allowed as prayed for. The statutory demand dated 21st September, 2022 is hereby set aside. Costs shall be in the cause.
1. I have considered the Notice of Motion application dated 14 October 2022 together with the affidavit sworn in support sworn on even date, the submissions of counsel, and the relevant law.
2. The applicant is seeking to set aside the statutory demand dated 21st September, 2022. The application is not opposed and to date, no replying affidavit was filed. I note that an affidavit was filed by the respondent, this morning, and mid-way through the present proceedings, after two entire years since service of the application.
3. Counsel for the respondent however stated that he was not in a position to respond the application, and he could not speak in opposition to the same.
4. The basis of the application is that the debt which is the subject of the statutory demand is disputed on grounds that are substantial. The applicant relied on Regulation 17 of the Insolvency Regulations 2016 in support of its argument and contended that in the present matter, the debt is disputed.
5. It is trite that liquidation proceedings ought not to be preferred in a case where the petitioner has an available remedy by way of filing a filing a claim in court for an alleged debt, and moreover, that at a disputed debt on substantial and bona fide grounds cannot be the subject of winding up proceedings.
6. The applicant’s contention is uncontroverted and accordingly the application is allowed as prayed for. The statutory demand dated 21st September, 2022 is hereby set aside. Costs shall be in the cause.