The Commercial Case Law Index is a collection of judgments from African countries on topics relating to commercial legal practice. The collection aims to provide a snapshot of commercial legal practice in a country, rather than present solely traditionally "reportable" cases. The index currently covers 400 judgments from Uganda, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana and South Africa.
Get started on finding judgments that are relevant to you by browsing the topic list on the left of the screen. Click the arrows next to the topic names to reveal a detailed list of sub-topics. Most judgments are accompanied by a short summary written by subject-matter expert postgraduate students from the University of Cape Town.
The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the petition of the respondent to wind up the appellant company for being unable to pay its debts.
The court held that jurisdiction is a threshold issue and where there is a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction, and then unless fulfilled, the court shall be devoid of the requisite jurisdiction to determine the matter. The dispute, if any must be within the parameters of disputing a debt; that is in good faith and on substantial grounds. The court stated that the appellant was supposed to put forward facts which would satisfy the court that there was something which was ought to have been looked into on the same matter.
Disputation of a debt can bar the court from allowing a petition for winding up a company which has failed to pay its debt. A real dispute must touch on the substance of the debt in its material particulars such as showing part of the debt had been settled. The court held that the appellant failed to make any payments to the respondent. Furthermore, the respondent satisfied the requirements of the act and the jurisdiction of the court was properly activated and the issue is resolved against the appellant.
The appeal was dismissed as it lacked substance.
This was an appeal against a decision of the court allowing an ex parte motion for the winding up of the appellant. The appeal was premised on the ground that the ex parte order was made against other parties who were not parties to the proceedings and were deprived of the right to be heard. The appellant further argued that the ex parte order was made without notice of the motion seeking the said orders being served on them which was regarded as contravening Order 4 of the Companies Winding-up Rules (the rules). The appellant also alleged abuse of court process by the respondent.
The respondent opposed the appeal by pointing out that issues raised by the appellant were substantial issues which cannot be dealt with in a preliminary objection. The respondent further disputed allegations of abuse of court process arguing that they at no point maintained two similar cases against the appellant.
The court held that where an order made by a court affects the interest of a non-party to a suit, the said party whose interest has been affected should complain. It ruled that it was out of place for the appellant to complain on behalf of the other parties. The court further pointed out that Order 4 of the rules does not allow freezing of assets and that the respondent breached Order 4 by filing an ex parte without serving a notice on the appellant. Thus the appeal was upheld.
The issue was whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear a petition for winding up and whether the respondent had required authorization to petition for winding up.
The appeal emanated from the dismissal of the appellant’s objection to a petition for winding up the appellant company. The appellant argued that the trial court had no jurisdiction to decide on the matter. It pointed out that only the English courts had exclusive jurisdiction to decide on any dispute between the parties. Moreover, the appellant challenged the legal personality of the respondent arguing that they did not provide original certificates of incorporation and that the respondent did not receive authority of shareholders to petition for the winding up.
The respondent opposed the appeal on the grounds that the English courts had exclusive jurisdiction only on disputes and not on a petition for winding up. It further argued that it required a trail to verify the authenticity of the certificate of incorporation. Lastly the respondent pointed out that since they were duly incorporated, they were authorized to work on behalf of the shareholders.
The court in dismissed the first two points raised by appellant. The court held that the English court’s exclusive jurisdiction did not extend to petitions and that documents attached to an affidavit in an interlocutory application should not be used as an objection to the issue of admissibility. However the court ruled that the respondent required the approval of directors and shareholders to file a petition to wind up. Thus the appeal was upheld.