Tanzania’s High Court appoints liquidator as insurer faces Sh12.5bn debt

Justice Khadija Kinyaka made the ruling on August 13, 2026, saying the applicants had established sufficient grounds to justify the appointment.

According to the application, as at September 30, 2025, the insurer had unpaid insurance claims worth Sh3.7 billion and other debts of Sh8.7 billion.

The applicants also alleged that the company had failed to settle customers’ insurance claims, maintain the required solvency margin, pay government taxes and meet the minimum capital requirements for operating an insurance business.

The court was further told that the company had stopped conducting insurance business, had no management or employees, and that its registered office had been closed. Its assets, accounting books and other records were also said to be at risk of being lost, damaged, concealed or misused.

The Commissioner of Insurance and the Attorney General therefore sought an ex parte order appointing an interim liquidator with immediate authority to take possession of the company and preserve and manage its assets, books, records and other resources pending determination of the liquidation proceedings.

During the hearing, the applicants were represented by State Attorneys Boaz Msoffe, Joseph Oguda and Emily Mwamboneke. Mr Welwel, who had been proposed as interim liquidator, was also present.

The company did not appear in court despite having been formally notified. The court was informed that the hearing notice had been served on one of its shareholders by email.

Presenting the application, Mr Msoffe relied on Section 298 of the Companies Act, Cap 212, arguing that the provision empowers the court to appoint an interim liquidator while an application to wind up a company is pending.

He said Commercial Case No. 14900 of 2026 remained before the court and was scheduled for hearing on September 9, 2026.

Mr Msoffe argued that the applicants had established a prima facie case for the company’s winding-up and demonstrated that its assets and records were at risk of being lost or damaged.

He said the company had accumulated debts, breached insurance requirements, ceased operations and was facing serious financial difficulties, while having no management or employees to safeguard its assets.

Mr Welwel confirmed that he was aware of his proposed appointment and told the court that, if appointed, he was ready and able to perform the duties of interim liquidator in accordance with the court’s directions.

Court’s decision

In her ruling, Justice Kinyaka said the key issue was whether the applicants had met the legal requirements for appointing an interim liquidator.

She found that the applicants had satisfied the court that there was a strong likelihood of a winding-up order being issued and that appointing an interim liquidator was necessary to protect the company’s assets and records.

The judge noted that the evidence showed there was no management or staff to safeguard the company’s offices, assets, books, records and other resources.

“This puts the respondent at risk of loss, damage, disappearance, unauthorised dealings, concealment or misuse of its assets, which would affect creditors, employees, policyholders, shareholders and other stakeholders,” Justice Kinyaka said.

She said appointing an interim liquidator was necessary to prevent the company’s assets and records from being lost, dissipated, removed or destroyed while the liquidation application was pending.

Justice Kinyaka therefore granted the application and appointed Mr Welwel as interim liquidator, giving him immediate authority to take possession of, preserve, protect and manage the company’s assets, books, documents and other resources.

The judge also directed that the interim liquidator could seek further directions from the court at any time on matters arising from his appointment.