Tejani v Official Receiver
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Judgment Date | 1963 |
| Year | 1963 |
| Date | 1963 |
Eastern Africa - Company - Winding up - Fraud reported by official receiver - Order of court directing public examination of directors - Nature of prima facie case of fraud in official receiver's report -
By section 214 (1) of the Companies Ordinance of Uganda (which corresponds to section 216 (1) of the United Kingdom Companies Act, 1929):
“Where an order has been made for winding up a company by the court, and the official receiver has made a further report under this Ordinance stating that in his opinion a fraud has been committed … by any director … of the company in relation to the company since its formation, the court may … direct that that … director … shall attend before the court … and be publicly examined as to the … formation or the conduct of the business of the company, or as to his conduct and dealings as director … thereof.”
After an order had been made for the compulsory winding up of a company incorporated in Uganda, the official receiver, under section 182 of the Companies Ordinance of Uganda, made a further report stating that in her opinion a fraud had been committed by the appellant directors since the formation of the company. The High Court of Uganda ordered the appellants to attend for public examination as to the conduct of the business of the company and as to their conduct and dealings as directors. A motion by the appellants to discharge that order having been dismissed by another judge of the High Court, they appealed by leave against the order of dismissal to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa, which dismissed their appeals. On appeal to the Board against that dismissal they contended, inter alia, that before any public examination could properly be held a prima facie case of fraud must be made out, and that the report of the official receiver must attribute to each appellant some particular piece of alleged fraud:—
Held, dismissing the appeal, that the need for a prima facie case was satisfied by a prima facie case of the highly qualified kind which was regarded as sufficient by Lindley M.R. in In re Civil, Naval and Military Outfitters Ltd. [
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
eTV (Pty) Ltd and Others v Judicial Service Commission and Others
...433 (HL): dictum at 447a referred to Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417 (HL): dictum at 447 referred to Tejani and Others v Official Receiver [1963] 1 All ER 429 (PC): referred to. F Statutes Statutes The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000: see Juta's Statutes of South Africa 2008/9......
-
Liberty Development Company Ltd ((in Liquidation)), Re. Application
...3 Ch. 332; Ex parte Barnes [1895-99] All E.R. 1275; In Re Civil, Naval and Military Outfitters Limited [1899] 1 Ch.215 and Tejani and Others v. Official Receiver [1963] 1 All E.R. 429 the judge formulated as a question for his consideration “whether there is a sufficient factual nexus lead......
-
Re Seagull Manufacturing Company Ltd ((in Liquidation))
...Ltd. v. Cannon Film Sales Ltd. [1987] 1 W.L.R. 1597; [1987] 3 All E.R. 986 Tejani v. Official Receiver [1963] 1 W.L.R. 59; [1963] 1 All E.R. 429, P.C. Tucker (A Bankrupt), In re [1988] 1 W.L.R. 497; [1988] 1 All E.R. 603 Wendt, In re; Ex parte Official Receiver (1889) 22 Q.B.D. 733, C.A. AP......
-
eTV (Pty) Ltd and Others v Judicial Service Commission and Others
...English, the reasons for exercising the discretion must not be 'flimsy'. (See, for example, Tejani and Others v Official Receiver [1963] 1 All ER 429 Of course, protecting the dignity of the judiciary is an important D consideration, but we have all been left in the dark as to why the holdi......
