Just why was Karuturi subjected to judgement based on a repealed law?

By Soko Directory Team / Published May 23, 2018 | 2:44 pm

In 2016, Karuturi received a peculiar hearing. The Honorable Justice Fred Ochieng ordered that the Companies Act Cap 486 applied to Karuturi’s case.

The judgment meant Karuturi was subject to Rules 128 and 129 of the Companies Winding Up Rules, and therefore bound by certain concessions that the Company was challenging.

There was only one problem: the Companies Act Cap 486 had already been repealed.

Karuturi made their application on 15th March of 2016. The Insolvency Act of 2015 was already in force at the time and was introduced to replace the Companies Act Cap 486.

In the words of the Honorable Justice Fred Ochieng himself, “Considering that part VI of the Insolvency Act No. 18 of 2015 was operationalized on 18th January 2016, it meant that the application was brought when the Insolvency Act was already in force.”

So how is it that the old, repealed law was applied to Karuturi’s case, instead of the new law that was already in force at the time — which would have favored Karuturi’s argument? How was this decision upheld? The Honorable Justice H. Tuiyott also echoed this peculiar opinion in his judgment of the CIVIL CASE NO. 68 OF 2015 saying “In keeping with the ruling made by the Honorable Justice Fred Ochieng… the repealed Companies Act Cap 486 of the Laws of Kenya applies…”

How does this make sense? How does a court case in 2016 enforce the older, repealed Companies Act Cap 486 instead of the Insolvency Act of 2015, which was designed to help creditors?

Karuturi staff presented the petition below to the governor of Nakuru county on Wednesday morning:

About Soko Directory Team

Soko Directory is a Financial and Markets digital portal that tracks brands, listed firms on the NSE, SMEs and trend setters in the markets eco-system.Find us on Facebook: facebook.com/SokoDirectory and on Twitter: twitter.com/SokoDirectory

View other posts by Soko Directory Team