PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

The appointment must take into consideration: (a) proof by affidavit of sufficient ground for the appointment (sub-rule 1); (b) the previous experience of the provisional liquidator and particulars of property dealt with (sub-rule 2). An appointment couched as "appointing a fit person as a provisional liquidator with the assistance of the parties" without compliance is completely erroneous.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Uwaifo, JSC, in General and Aviation Services Ltd v. Thahal (2004) NLC-2222000(SC) at pp. 21–22; Paras E–A.
"It can be seen that the appointment must take into consideration (a) proof by affidavit of sufficient ground for the appointment of a provisional liquidator: sub-rule (1); (b) the previous experience of the provisional liquidator, the particulars of the nature and description of the property with which he had dealt being stated: sub-rule (2). As already indicated proof by affidavit must depend on facts and circumstances. The so-called appointment couched thus, 'that an order is hereby made appointing a fit person as a provisional liquidator with the assistance of the parties,' by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal is completely erroneous and cannot be allowed to stand."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

Rule 21 of the Companies Winding-up Rules establishes mandatory procedural requirements for appointing a provisional liquidator: (1) affidavit proof showing sufficient grounds, and (2) disclosure of the proposed liquidator’s experience and details of property previously handled. A vague appointment order without compliance with these requirements is fundamentally erroneous and cannot stand. This serves ensuring proper scrutiny before appointing a provisional liquidator. The court cannot dispense with these procedural safeguards or appoint a provisional liquidator based on general “fitness” without supporting affidavit evidence and experience disclosure.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE

General and Aviation Services Ltd v. Captain Paul M. Thahal