Skip to main content

BANKRUPTCY ( BUSINESS ASSOCIATION)

Bankruptcy

Source : URSB

Bankruptcy is the process by which an insolvent individual is made bankrupt and his or her assets are administered for the benefit of his or her creditors. Accordingly, a bankrupt is a person who has been adjudged bankrupt and whose estate is administered by a trustee in bankruptcy for the benefit of the bankrupt’s creditors.


A person is adjudged bankrupt when the court makes a bankruptcy Order against him/her. The bankruptcy Order declares the person bankrupt and appoints the Official Receiver as interim receiver of his/her estate in order to preserve the estate. The bankrupt’s estate then vests first in the Official Receiver and then in the trustee. No transfer documents need to be signed for the estate to vest in the Official Receiver or trustee.


Bankruptcy commences on the day on which the bankruptcy order is made. Within 14 days, the Official Receiver must give a public notice that the bankruptcy has commenced and call the first creditors’ meeting. The creditors’ meeting appoints a trustee and vests the bankrupt’s estate in the trustee.


The principle matter for discussion at a meeting of creditors will be the statement of affairs presented by the debtor. And the debtor must be present at this meeting unless good cause is shown for his absence. At this and subsequent meetings the creditors may agree to a composition or a scheme of arrangement.


In case of a composition, the debtor keeps the assets and pays for them a certain sum to his creditors whereas in a scheme of arrangement, the debtor transfers his assets to a trustee, who then makes payments to creditors.


The third option for the creditors is to agree to ask court to adjudicate the debtor bankrupt. After he/she has realised all the assets of the bankrupt, the trustee in bankruptcy shall distribute the proceeds among the bankrupt’s creditors.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

DERIVATIVE EVIDENCE IN UGANDA

LAW OF EVIDENCE 1 DERIVATIVE EVIDENCE IN UGANDA by: A bdallah sekibembe SAMPLE QUESTION   : With the aid of statutory provisions and decided cases, discuss the admissibility of derivative evidence in courts of law in Uganda.       Keane, McKeown, 2011, pg.02 define evidence to mean information by which facts tend to be proved, and the law of evidence being a body of law and discretion regulating the means by which facts may be proved in courts where strict rules of evidence apply. For such evidence to be admissible in courts of law, it must be sufficiently relevant to prove or disprove a fact in issue. This is enshrined under section 4 of the Evidence Act which is to the effect that evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or nonexistence of every fact in issue, and of such other facts as are hereafter declared to be relevant, and of no others. Noteworthy, not all relevant evidence is admissible in courts of law as will...
Post a Comment
Read more

REMEDIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (ADMNISTRATIVE PROCESSES)

By : Dr. Odhiambo and Mr. Wandera ( Lecturers MUK)  Art 42 of the 1995 constitution provides that any person shall have the right to apply to a court of law in respect of any administrative decision taken against him/ her. In addition to the courts of law; there are other institutions and procedures a person may resort to if aggrieved by an administrative decision. Accordingly, administrative remedies may be classified into 2; 1. Judicial remedies. 2. Non- judicial remedies.                 JUDICIAL REMEDIES This refers to remedies that an aggrieved party may obtain from a court of law, in most cases the high court. Section 33 of the Judicature Act Cap (13), provides that the High Court shall, in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it by the Constitution, this Act or any written law, grant absolutely or on such terms and conditions as it thinks just, all such remedies as any of the parties to a c...
1 comment
Read more

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GOVERNMENT ( LECTURE NOTES )

By : Dr. Odhiambo and Mr. Wandera ( Lecturers MUK ) Brief background Under common law, it was a general presumption that the crown could not do anything wrong. In theory the crown could do no wrong therefore no liability could ensue against it. Therefore legal proceedings against government were restricted on this ground because government was her/ his majesty's government. This is what is otherwise referred to as immunity from liability. This old age theory that the King could do wrong ignored the fact that the King had a personal capacity as well as a political. This was inappropriately inherited by almost all erstwhile British colonies, Uganda inclusive. However, common law recognised limited legal liability against government and this could be instituted by way of a royal fiat / petition of right.  Under this procedure, the prospective litigant against the crown could seek permission of the crown itself before he could commence proceedings. Before 1947, in England, an actio...
5 comments
Read more