Trio Holdings Ltd v Magnum International Ltd
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court wound up Magnum International Ltd because it admitted a debt, never paid it, and had no valid stay protecting it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Effect of disputed debt on Section 220 statutory notice
The debt was not genuinely disputed; the debtor admitted Shs 555,900/- and never paid it, so the statutory demand was effective.
The debtor alleged the debt was disputed and that no Section 220 notice could issue for a disputed debt. The court found the debtor had admitted Shs 555,900/- in summary judgment proceedings, that the pending appeal was only against the order for possession, and that no payment had been made on the admitted sum.
Whether pending appeal stays execution and bars winding-up
No effective stay existed; the conditional stay lapsed for failure to provide the bank guarantee, and the appeal did not concern the money decree.
The debtor produced only an uncertified copy of a professed stay order, never approved or signed. Even on its face the stay was conditional on providing a Shs 1,410,000/- bank guarantee within 30 days, which the debtor failed to do. Counsel conceded the appeal was only against possession, not the debt.
Legal principles established
#- A company that admits a debt and fails to pay it, or a lesser admitted sum, is deemed unable to pay its debts notwithstanding a pending appeal on a different limb of the decree.
Court orders
#- 1.The debtor company known as Magnum International Limited be wound up
- 2.Costs of the petition awarded to the petitioning creditor as well as to the supporting creditors
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Companies Act (Cap 486), winding-up jurisdiction under Section 220
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Trio Holdings Ltd v Magnum International Ltd", Case Analysis (1989). Winding-Up Petition (Companies Act, Cap 486), filed 19th October 1988. Source:
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.