Procédures Collectives - Commandement - Procédure Erronée - Cessation Des Paiements - Désignation D'un Juge Commissaire

Motion On Notice - Order Of Mandamus - Ruling Set Aside - Wrong Procédure - Preliminary Objection - Specific Performance - Cessation Of Payments - Collective Proceedings - Appointment Of Court Officer

The court was seized by motion on notice whereby the depositor was praying the court for an order to cause the Bamenda branch of a financial institution which had closed its doors or any other branch of the establishment in Cameroon to reimburse his savings. The court ruled that since the financial institution was in a difficult financial situation, an application on motion was an improper procedure. The customer ought to have applied for legal redress of the establishment based on section 28 of the Uniform Act on Collective Proceedings which provides that, collective proceedings may be initiated at the request of one creditor, no matter the nature of his claim, as long as it is unquestionable.

However, as a financial institution and under the control of COBAC and given that a civil matter is a party's matter and the court cannot rule “ultra petita”, the court had to determine whether it was competent to initiate collective proceedings against the establishment. By virtue of section 29 of the UACP, the competent court may be seised of the matter of its own motion, notably on the basis of information provided by the representative of the Public Prosecutor's Department, the auditors of the private corporate bodies where the latter have auditors, partners or members of the said corporate bodies or institutions representing the staff who shall indicate to the court the facts likely to motivate such initiative by the court. The court was reliably informed by the representative of the institution that it was in financial difficulty and the court had to summon its Bamenda branch manager and appointed a court officer to hear him.

Article 28 Aupcap
Article 29 Aupcap
Sections 28 And 29 Uacp