African Textile Mill Ltd (in liquidation) v Co-operative Bank Ltd (in liquidation) (HCT-00-CC-CS 20 of 2005)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
A secured creditor in company liquidation may elect to stand outside the winding up process and enforce mortgage rights independently. An application under Companies Act s.305 seeking guidance on questions arising in winding up must be brought by the liquidator personally, not in the name of the company in liquidation. The mortgagee's election to realise security and discharge the secured debt is lawful even during voluntary winding up, and submission to court jurisdiction in related civil suits does not preclude enforcement of mortgage rights.
Outcome
Application dismissed on procedural grounds; Court provided guidance that secured creditor may enforce mortgage rights outside liquidation process
Facts
African Textile Mill Limited entered voluntary liquidation. The company had mortgaged property to Co-operative Bank Limited under three registered instruments securing Shs.1,200,000,000. The company defaulted on repayment obligations and became indebted in the sum of Shs.1,323,401,196. The Bank took steps to realise its security and entered into possession of the mortgaged property on 31 May 2005. The factory closed and workers were sent home. The liquidator, Clive Mutiso, appointed at an extraordinary meeting of company members, sought court guidance on whether the Bank could lawfully enforce its mortgage during liquidation and whether the Bank's submission to court jurisdiction in two related civil suits precluded enforcement of mortgage rights. The application was brought in the name of the company in liquidation rather than by the liquidator personally.
Issues
- Whether the application was properly brought in the name of the company in liquidation rather than by the liquidator personally under Companies Act s.305.
- Whether it is lawful and justifiable for a secured creditor to enforce its mortgage during the voluntary winding up of the mortgagor company.
- Whether a mortgagee who has submitted to the jurisdiction of court in related civil suits can nonetheless enforce its mortgage rights outside the winding up process.
Orders
- Application dismissed as improperly brought in the name of the company rather than by the liquidator.
- Guidance provided that the Respondent as secured creditor is entitled to enforce its mortgage during liquidation.
- Costs awarded to the Respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
Cases cited (3)
- Food Controller v Cork [1923] AC 647
- Cuckmere Brick Co Ltd v Mutual Finance Ltd [1971] 2 All ER 633
- Mubiru v Uganda Credit & Savings Bank [1978] HCB 109
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.