PBM Nominees Limited v Uchumi Supermarkets Limited [2020] KEELC 1667 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to pause a landlord's Kshs 147 million rent claim because the insolvency case the supermarket relied on had already been settled under a rescue plan.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a stay of proceedings should issue pending an insolvency petition
The application failed because the insolvency petition it was premised on had been marked as settled under the approved Company Voluntary Arrangement and was no longer pending
The court appraised the record of Nairobi High Court Insolvency Petition No 25 of 2018 and found that on 1/7/2020 Kasango J approved the CVA and ordered that the winding up petition be marked as settled. Since the applicant's application was entirely premised on stay orders tied to that petition, and the petition was no longer pending, no basis existed to grant the stay sought.
Legal principles established
#- A stay pending determination of an insolvency petition cannot stand where the petition has been marked as settled and is no longer pending
Court orders
#- 1.Notice of motion dated 18/11/2019 rejected for lack of merit
- 2.Defendant to bear costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly invoked; original civil jurisdiction over a claim for rent arrears, service charge and interest, with jurisdiction challenged by preliminary objection (left unresolved)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "PBM Nominees Limited v Uchumi Supermarkets Limited [2020] KEELC 1667 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment (plaintiff's suit filed 25/6/2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/1667/eng@2020-07-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.