Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Real Gaba Market Property Owner v Kampala Capital City Authority (Civil Suit No. 248 of 2008) [2014] UGHCLD 42 (26 November 2014)
The High Court held that a suit filed in the name of a nonexistent company was a nullity and could not be cured by amendment. The plaint was struck out with costs.
Gamukama & Anor v Tripple Mpungu General Trading Stores Ltd & Anor (Civil Suit No. 17 of 2003) [2012] UGHC 90 (10 May 2012)
The court found that Triple Mpungu Traders was a partnership of three individuals—the two plaintiffs and the second defendant—who paid the full purchase price and were issued a certificate of purchase in their names. The subsequent incorporation of the first defendant and its registration as proprietor was orchestrated by the second defendant without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiffs, amounting to fraud. The first defendant did not exist at the time of the original purchase and paid no consideration for the property. The purported transfer of title to the first defendant was null and…
Source excerpt
Mugenyi and Company Advocates v The Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 43 of 1995) [1997] UGSC 30 (10 July 1997)
The Supreme Court held that Uganda Transport Company (1975) Ltd was duly and legally incorporated as a private limited company under the Companies Act, with the certificate of incorporation serving as conclusive evidence of compliance. The principle of separate corporate personality applies, and the Government, as sole shareholder, is not liable for the company's debts. The appellant, having represented the company as a separate legal entity and accepted payments from it for over a decade, is estopped from denying its legal status to claim directly against the Government. There was no statuto…
Source excerpt
Wallace Brothers and Company (Holdings) Ltd v Commissioners for Stamp Duties (Miscellaneous Civil Suit No. 85 of 1955) [1956] EACA 39 (1 January 1956)
The court held that the words 'company with limited liability' in section 30B(2)(a) of the Stamp Ordinance must be interpreted in a restrictive sense, meaning only companies incorporated in Kenya are eligible for the exemption from stamp duty. The transfer in question, being between two companies incorporated in the United Kingdom, does not qualify for the exemption. The court relied on analogous English statutes and case law, particularly the decisions in Nestlé Co. Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, which interpreted similar statutory language restrictively. The court emphasized that exp…
Source excerpt
