KCC 467/2002

This case involved a request that a claimant announce their bankruptcy and an insolvency practitioner be appointed. It was wrongly argued the case should be suspended until a case filed by a third defendant was decided. This was incorrect as the court had authority to decide on suspensions of proceedings.

Background

A claimant filed a case against defendants and requested the court to order the first defendant to announce their bankruptcy and appoint the second defendant as an insolvency practitioner.

The court ruled the first defendant should announce bankruptcy and appointed the General Authority of Investment as an insolvency practitioner.

The first defendant appealed the ruling before the court of appeal. The court upheld the appealed ruling.

Decision

The first defendant appealed the ruling before the court of cassation and stated in his grounds of appeal that the ruling had erred in the application of law because he had maintained before the court that consideration of the case should be suspended until the case filed by the third defendant was settled but the court had ignored his request.