by: Political Insider
An annulment of an insolvency adjudication means just that - the insolvency order should never have been made in the first place. Why has there been an annulment in Bari Palma’s case?
Bari Palme was ordered to pay the taxed court case costs after he lost an election petition.
The costs went to taxation (like a checking of costs) before the registrar. The winner had claimed approximately k600,000.00 in legal costs. The deputy registrar checked it and reduced the amount to about K271,000. Then Bari Palma applied to the National court for a review of the taxation - which is his right under law.
Therefore, whilst this national court review was on foot and whilst the actual amount owed hasn’t been finally determined - the winner started insolvency proceedings against Bari Palma. Now insolvency proceedings should only be commenced when the amount owed uncertain and fixed - that is called a “liquidated” amount in legal speak.
However, the winner went ahead - and Bari Palma’s lawyer wasn’t there on the day - and there was an insolvency order made. Bari Palme then appealed it and the Supreme Court stayed the insolvency order pending the appeal.
Soon after the insolvency order, the national court reviewed the taxes amount from approximately k271 000 to K121,000. and Bari actually then paid that total amount over.
Bari’s lawyers then did nothing and the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution in June of 2020. So then Bari’s lawyers filed an application in June 2020 to annul the insolvency order given the amount wasn’t fixed at the time - but then his lawyer Win Otto DIED.
Another lawyer took over - filed in October 2020 another application to annul the insolvency - and on 20 November 2020 the court ordered that that application be listed for hearing on 11 December.
So the application to annul was argued on Friday 11 December and they won - because quite clearly - the insolvency order should never have been given in the first place because the debt wasn’t a fixed amount and it was subject to a national court review at the time.
Now an annulment of an insolvency adjudication is different from a discharge of an insolvency adjudication.
Just like an annulment of marriage is different from a divorce - in that situation when a marriage is annulled - like for the reason it was never consummated - then it as if there was no Marriage-in the first place. And that’s why the Catholics allow annulment - but a divorce recognizes that there was a valid marriage in the first place but now the parties don’t want to be married anymore so a divorce is an order that breaks a valid Marriage. And Catholics don’t allow that !
So too an annulment of an insolvency adjudication means that it is as if the insolvency order was never made in the first place. As it wasn’t validly made at the time. So it is as if Bari was never made insolvent at all.
So the disqualification provision in section 103(3)(d) if the constitution doesn’t apply as the legal position is now that Bari was NEVER ordered/adjudged insolvent
As you can see from the details above - nothing was fastracked. The hearing on 11 December was as a result of a notice of motion filed 15 October to annul the insolvency and a court order on 20 November to list that notice of motion for hearing on 11 December !
NOT fast tracked. Just normal.