Please Wait. Searching ...
|Case Number:||Civil Appeal 31 of 2020|
|Parties:||Co-Operative Bank of Kenya v Magdalene Nthoki Emmanuel (Suing as the Legal representative to the Estate of Joyce Mbithe Muasya (Deceased) & Invesco Assurance Co. Ltd|
|Date Delivered:||09 Dec 2021|
|Court:||High Court at Makueni|
|Judge(s):||George Matatia Abaleka Dulu|
|Citation:||Co-operative Bank of Kenya v Magdalene Nthoki Emmanuel (Suing as the Legal representative to the Estate of Joyce Mbithe Muasya (Deceased) & another  eKLR|
|Case Outcome:||Application dismissed|
|Disclaimer:||The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information|
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
HCCA NO. 31 OF 2020
CO-OPERATIVE BANK OF KENYA..................................................APPLICANT/APPELLANT
MAGDALENE NTHOKI EMMANUEL
(Suing as the Legal representative to the Estate of
JOYCE MBITHE MUASYA (DECEASED)......................................................1ST RESPONDENT
INVESCO ASSURANCE CO. LTD....................................................................2ND RESPONDENT
1. Before me is an application dated 5th February 2021, filed under section 428, 429 and 430 of the Insolvency Act and Order 51 Rule 1, section 1A and 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, seeking the following orders –
1) That this court be pleased to stay these proceedings pending the hearing and determination of Nairobi Commercial & Admiralty Division Insolvency Cause No. E155 of 2019.
2) That this court be pleased to order all modes of execution against the 2nd respondent including the Garnishee proceedings instituted by the 1st respondent as void and unlawful by virtue of the winding up orders issued on the 7th day of November 2019 in Insolvency Petition No. E009 of 2019.
3) That the honourable court be pleased to order that any attachment, sequestration, distress or execution against the appellant/applicant herein is void.
4) That costs of this application be provided for.
2. The application has grounds on the face of the Notice of Motion that the 1st respondent herein instituted Garnishee proceedings against the appellant for the release of Kshs.2,860,578/= as held on behalf of the 2nd respondent, that during the pendency of the Garnishee proceedings and prior to issuance of the decree absolute, there had been filed a Creditors Insolvency Petition at the Nairobi Commercial and Admiralty Division being Insolvency Cause No. E155 of 2019 and that under section 428 of the Insolvency Act, a creditor or contributory may apply to the court to restrain any further proceedings in that respect.
3. The application was filed with a supporting affidavit sworn on 5th February 2021 by Philip Musya advocate for the applicant amplifying the grounds of the application. The applicant also filed a further affidavit sworn on 20/4/2021 by the same deponent.
4. The application is opposed through a replying affidavit sworn on 14/4/2021 by S.M Makau advocate for the 1st respondent, in which it was deponed that the applicant’s counsel had recorded a consent for the release of the amount claimed, and that an application filed thereafter to set aside the said consent was dismissed by the court.
5. The application proceeded by way of filing written submissions and I have perused and considered the submission on both sides. I note that the 2nd respondent did not file any response to the application.
6. Having considered this application, and the submissions of counsel for the parties and the law, I am of the view that this application lacks merits and has to be dismissed.
7. The first reason is that a consent filed by counsel in this matter is still effective and attempt to set it aside has already been dismissed by the court, which is not denied by the applicant. That consent thus still subsits and cannot be impeded by insolvency proceedings pending in another court, in which not all parties herein are parties.
8. Secondly, no moratorium or restraining order has been shown to have been issued in Nairobi Commercial and Admiralty Division Insolvency Cause No. E155 of 2019 as required by law. In this regard section 428(1) and (2) of the Insolvency Act relied upon by the applicant’s counsel is relevant and states as follows –
428(1) At any time after the making of a liquidation application and before a liquidation order has been made the company, or any creditor or any contributory may –
a) If legal proceedings against the company are pending in court – apply to the court for the proceedings to be stayed; and
b) If proceedings relating to a matter are pending against the company in another court, apply to the court to restrain further proceedings in respect of the matter in the other court
(2) On the hearing of an application under sub-section 1(a) or (b), the court may make an order staying or restraining the proceedings on such terms as it considers appropriate.
9. My understanding of the above provisions of the statute law is that the application for a moratorium or restraining order of other proceedings has to be made in the cause in which there is a liquidation application, not in those other proceedings. The moratorium or restraining orders have to be obtained in that cause. Thus the present application in my view has been made in the wrong case, and is for dismissal.
10. Thirdly, the concepts of receivership and liquidation are different concepts and the applicant has referred to a Receivership Cause No. E155 of 2019 in Nairobi Commercial Court, not a liquidation Cause. On the difference between the two legal concepts of receivership and liquidation, I will cite the case of Thomas and Piron Grands Lacs ltd –vs- Lightouse Property Company Ltd; Chase Bank Kenya Ltd (In Receivership) and Another (Interested Parties) (2019) eKLR wherein Tuiyot J. as he then was stated as follows –
“The concept of receivership and liquidation as contemplated by the KDI Act are different. The circumstances under which Central Bank can place a bank under receivership are set out in section 43(2) of the KDI Act and include when assets of an institution are less than its obligations to its creditors or the institution has engaged in malpractices or activities contrary to provisions of any Kenyan law or other applicable law”.
11. In my view, receivership applies when a receiver is appointed to try to revive the company, while liquidation is a process of winding up the company. Only in cases where liquidation proceedings have been taken can orders of stay of other proceedings be applied for and effected. Thus the court could only consider a stay of proceedings application, if there were liquidation proceedings
12. In my view therefore, the application herein is misadvised and has no merits. I dismiss the application with costs to the respondents.
DELIVERED, SIGNED & DATED THIS 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021, IN OPEN COURT AT MAKUENI.