The media has been awash with the reportage of the United States Supreme Court judgment of 30th June 2023 in the case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis which in effect holds that a private business can refuse to render services to customers they believe are gay if their beliefs are against gay and the state cannot force them to go against their belief to render services to any and everybody.

I have so far seen and read a series of false reportage embellished with propaganda on this case, obviously sponsored by gay rights activists so as to cause public uproar  but most of those reportage are false and misleading but herein is a summary of the event leading to this famous case, the judgment of the Supreme Court and its ratio decidendi;

Lorie Smith, a Christian graphic artist and website designer based in Colorado was contacted by a gay couple to design a website for them for their gay marriage, Lorie Smith being a Christain turned down the job stating affirmatively that her beliefs and faith as a Christain is against same-sex marriage and it will go against her believe to design a website that is promoting and passing gay messages.

The state of Colorado was to compel her to take any and every job and turning down any job just because it offends her beliefs will go against Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act. Lorie Smith then approached the court seeking an injunction against the state of Colorado not compelling her to design artwork for gay couples.

The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision subsequently ruled that Lorie Smith cannot be compelled by the state to design same-sex marriage sites if it offends her belief or faith, forcing her to do that offends the United States first amendment rights. 

This case has cast a shell against gay rights activists who always want to force their sexual orientation down the throat of others and if you dare resist them they will come after you for discriminating against them based on their sexual orientation.

Therefore, from now henceforth, a restaurant owner may refuse to attend to gay couples or allow gay couples to host their events in his venue if it offends his or her belief; a Christian priest can now legally turn down officiating a gay couple’s wedding and he won’t be sued for discrimination.

As you are validly exercising your right to be gay, another person can as well exercise his or her rights not to be associated with you and both exercises will be valid and legal. You cannot force the exercise of your own rights down the throat of others.

In the winding-up of a company upon established insolvency, the next step is to typically come after persons deemed liable for the wound up company’s debts be they members, directors or guarantors. 

This article will be focused on contributories under the CAMA 2020, particularly on the topics of :-

– Who constitutes a contributory under CAMA 2020.

– The extent of liabilityfor contributories under CAMA 2020.

– Contributories in the event of death of members of the company.

– Contributories in the event of bankruptcy of the members of the company.

What is a contributory under CAMA 2020?

The term, “contributory” means every person liable to contribute to the assets of a company in the event of its being wound up, and for the purposes of all proceedings prior to the final determination of the persons who are to be deemed contributories, the expression includes any person alleged to be a contributory.

What does CAMA 2020 say about the liability of a contributory?

In the event of a company being wound up, every present and past member is liable to contribute to the assets of the company as provided in Section 117 of this Act.

What does CAMA 2020 say about the nature of liability of a contributory?

The liability of a contributory creates a debt of the nature of an ordinary contract debt accruing and due from him at the time when his liability commenced, but payable at the time when calls are made for enforcing the liability.

An action to recover a debt created by this section shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. 

What does CAMA 2020 say on contributories in the case of death of death of a company member?

If a contributory dies either before or after he has been placed on the list of contributories, his personal representatives, heirs and devisees, are liable in due course of administration to contribute to the assets of the company in discharge of his liability and they are contributories accordingly. 

Where the personal representatives are placed on the list of contributories, the heirs or devisees need not be added but they may be added as and when the Court deems fit.

If the personal representatives make default in paying any money ordered to be paid by them, proceedings may be taken for administering the whole or any part of the estate of the deceased contributory, and for compelling payment out of it of the money due. 

What does CAMA 2020 say on contributories in the case of bankruptcy of a member?

If a contributory becomes bankrupt, either before or after he has been placed on the list of contributories, then:

(a) his trustee in bankruptcy shall represent him for the purposes of the winding-up, and shall be a contributory accordingly, and may be called—

(i) on to admit to proof against the estate of the bankrupt, 

(ii) to allow to be paid out of his assets, any money due from the bankrupt in respect of his liability to contribute to the assets of the company ; and 

(b) there may be proved against the estate of the bankrupt the estimated value of his liability to future calls as well as calls already made.

The provisions of this section extend and apply with all necessary changes to the case of an insolvent person.