LEGAL PRINCIPLE: COMPANY LAW — Winding-Up — Appointment of Provisional Liquidator — Requirement of Sufficient Grounds Established by Affidavit Evidence of Facts
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The court should act with circumspection and on clear facts that a winding-up petition is likely to succeed or contains momentous factual allegations. Discretion must be exercised upon known, fully disclosed facts. No discretion can be regarded as judicially exercised upon no factual disclosure, partial disclosure, or misrepresented or suppressed facts.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in General and Aviation Services Ltd v. Thahal (2004) NLC-2222000(SC) at pp. 19–20; Paras E–A.
"Admittedly, the exercise of discretion upon known facts involves the balancing of a number of relevant considerations upon which opinions of individual Judges may differ as to their relative weight in a particular case... But that will not necessarily affect the justness of the exercise of the discretion, so long as the facts are available and reasonably appreciated... I think in order to avoid making a decision that is likely to paralyze the affairs of a company by the appointment of a provisional liquidator, or to create uncertainty or panic as regards the viability of the company, the court should act with circumspection and on clear facts that a winding-up petition is likely to succeed or at any rate, contains momentous factual allegations. Such facts ought to be evidence when reliance is placed on affidavit disclosure in support of the appointment of a provisional liquidator. It cannot be over-emphasized that it is upon known, or at times undisputed facts, or facts as found, and in all cases fully disclosed facts, that a Judge seeking to do what is just and equitable may exercise his discretion. No discretion can be regarded as judicially and judiciously exercised upon no factual disclosure or upon partial disclosure, or upon misrepresented or suppressed facts."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Appointing a provisional liquidator can paralyze a company and create panic. The court requires clear, affidavit-disclosed facts showing the winding-up petition is likely to succeed. The court cannot appoint on vague allegations or partial disclosure. The principle applies to winding-up proceedings. The court must act with circumspection. The rule protects companies from vexatious petitions.