Please Wait. Searching ...
|Case Number:||Winding Up Cause 54 of 1998|
|Parties:||In Re Plant Industries Ltd|
|Date Delivered:||20 Dec 1999|
|Court:||High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)|
|Judge(s):||Jackson Kasanga Mulwa|
|Citation:||In Re Plant Industries Ltd  eKLR|
|Court Division:||Commercial Tax & Admiralty|
|Parties Profile:||Individual/Private Body/Association v Individual/Private Body/Association|
Company Law-winding-up-application for winding-up- application brought on the ground that the respondent company had been unable to pay its financial debts-where the application was not opposed- where the respondent had not shown that it had other properties outside the debtors held by the other creditors-whether the orders sought in the petition could be granted
|Case Outcome:||Petition Allowed|
|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 AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Winding Up Cause 54 of 1998
In The Matter of Plant Industries Ltd v In The Matter of Companies Act
In this petitioner is asking for orders that the Respondent Company be wound up. The application based on the grounds that the Respondent Company has been unable to meet its financial debts and in particular has been unable to meet its financial debts and in particular the repayment of the sum of HFL34,232.87 it owed to the petitioner. The petitioner contents that the Respondent Company is insolvent and unable to pay its debts. I have read the petition and considered the grounds herein. I have also considered the submission by the counsel for the petitioner. It does appear that the Respondent Company is unable to pay its debts. The application has not been opposed and the Respondent has not shown that it has other properties outside the debtors held by the other creditors. Neither did anybody a creditor or otherwise show that an order of winding up will not benefit the petitioning creditor. Although the petitioning creditor did not show what benefits he would get from a Winding order but for the reasons that the petition is not opposed. I shall allow the petition and the orders sought in the petition are granted.
December 20, 1999.