Ruling:
1. I have considered the application dated 4th March 2024 together with the affidavit in support sworn on even date; the replying affidavit in opposition to the same sworn on 27th March 2024 together with grounds of opposition filed on even date; the submissions of the parties; and the applicable law.
2. The application is made under section 32 of the Insolvency Act and speaks to the criteria applicable to a debtor making an application for a bankruptcy order.
3. However, looking at the application, it is evident to me that the orders being sought by the applicant are winding up orders.
4. Moreover, the applicant is not an individual, it is a company, and the above provisions relating to bankruptcy therefore do not apply to it.
5. Additionally, the orders sought by the applicant are the preserve of creditors under the Act. The same have been improperly invoked by the applicant.
6. I am of the view that the court ought not stay legitimate proceedings against a company until such time as an order for administration or liquidation is made, as may be appropriate in the circumstances. The applicant is not however seeking such relief in its prayers.
7. Finally, I note that the applicant has invoked Section 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act in support of its application to stay the various litigation proceedings pending the determination of a bankruptcy petition. The provisions do not however apply to Insolvency Proceedings.
8. I do not think the applicant may wind up the company with a bankruptcy order, and accordingly, the prayers for stay of proceedings may not be granted either in the pendency.
9. Based on the reasons above, I find that the application is incurably defective. The same is dismissed with costs.
1. I have considered the application dated 4th March 2024 together with the affidavit in support sworn on even date; the replying affidavit in opposition to the same sworn on 27th March 2024 together with grounds of opposition filed on even date; the submissions of the parties; and the applicable law.
2. The application is made under section 32 of the Insolvency Act and speaks to the criteria applicable to a debtor making an application for a bankruptcy order.
3. However, looking at the application, it is evident to me that the orders being sought by the applicant are winding up orders.
4. Moreover, the applicant is not an individual, it is a company, and the above provisions relating to bankruptcy therefore do not apply to it.
5. Additionally, the orders sought by the applicant are the preserve of creditors under the Act. The same have been improperly invoked by the applicant.
6. I am of the view that the court ought not stay legitimate proceedings against a company until such time as an order for administration or liquidation is made, as may be appropriate in the circumstances. The applicant is not however seeking such relief in its prayers.
7. Finally, I note that the applicant has invoked Section 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act in support of its application to stay the various litigation proceedings pending the determination of a bankruptcy petition. The provisions do not however apply to Insolvency Proceedings.
8. I do not think the applicant may wind up the company with a bankruptcy order, and accordingly, the prayers for stay of proceedings may not be granted either in the pendency.
9. Based on the reasons above, I find that the application is incurably defective. The same is dismissed with costs.