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
Bhatia and Another v Boutique Shazim Ltd and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 123 of 2023) [2024] UGHCCD 146 (6 September 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application to lift Boutique Shazim Ltd’s corporate veil and execute decree debts against its directors, finding no cogent proof of fraud or sham conduct.
Sarick Construction Limited v Children of Africa Limited & Another (Miscellaneous Application 4 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 721 (2 August 2024)
The High Court refused to lift the corporate veil of Children of Africa Ltd, finding no proof of fraud or evasion by its director, and dismissed the application with costs.
Amayo v Zhang & 2 Others (Civil Suit 12 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 352 (16 May 2024)
The court found that the plaint contains averments that the 1st defendant executed contracts and occupied the premises, and that the existence of the 2nd defendant as a company is a matter for determination at trial. The court held that a cause of action is disclosed against the 1st defendant, as the pleadings allege facts that, if proved, could establish liability. The preliminary objection was not purely a point of law but involved factual controversies requiring evidence. The plaintiff is entitled to join the 1st defendant to avoid multiplicity of suits, and the question of liability shoul…
Source excerpt
Mugerenge and Others v Rock Grass Root Investment Enterprises Limited (Civil Appeal 71 of 2015) [2023] UGCommC 20 (19 January 2023)
The court held that the appellants failed to discharge the burden of proof required under Section 284 of the Companies Act, 2012 to show, by credible evidence, that the respondent company was unable to pay costs if unsuccessful. The court found no corroborative evidence in the pleadings or affidavits to support the claim of impecuniosity or lack of assets. The trial magistrate properly exercised judicial discretion in refusing to order security for costs, as the application lacked merit. The court confirmed that the onus was on the appellants to prove the respondent's financial incapacity, wh…
Source excerpt
Galiwango t/a Habriz Auto Supplies v Royal Transit Ltd and Anor (Civil Suit No. 511 of 2018) [2022] UGCommC 11 (24 January 2022)
The High Court found a valid supply contract, held the defendants liable for the unpaid balance on truck spare parts, and awarded the plaintiff UGX 200,031,000 plus costs.
KCB Bank (U) Ltd v Formula Feeds Ltd and 3 Others (Civil Application 38 of 2020) [2021] UGSC 47 (14 September 2021)
The Supreme Court ordered the respondents to provide further security for costs and security for past costs, finding the appeal and recovery risks justified the request.
Spring Freight Logistics Limited v Amoo Holding International Limited and Others (Civil Suit 556 of 2019) [2021] UGCommC 148 (12 July 2021)
The High Court held the 1st defendant liable for unpaid freight and clearing charges proved by dishonoured cheques, but dismissed claims against the 2nd and 3rd defendants.
Semakula Kayinda v Auger Revival Ministries Limited (Civil Suit 880 of 2020) [2020] UGCommC 168 (4 October 2020)
The High Court found a partly oral, partly written contract to set up ABS Television studios, held the company bound by its manager’s authority, and awarded the plaintiff most of the claimed sum.
Mutesi Ann and Other v Iran Uganda Est. Limited and Others (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 114 of 2019) [2020] UGIC 60 (29 April 2020)
The Industrial Court dismissed an application to lift the corporate veil of the employer company, finding no sufficient evidence of fraud by the directors.
Nile Energy Ltd v Phoenix Petroleum Ltd & 2 Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 596 of 2015) [2017] UGCommC 147 (25 July 2017)
The court found that the applicant failed to strictly prove fraud by the respondents as required by law. The transfer of shares and assets by the 1st respondent and its directors occurred before the consent judgment and was not shown to be intended to defeat execution or defraud the applicant. The evidence did not establish that the company was a mere facade or that the respondents acted with fraudulent intent. The court held that the proper course for the applicant was to pursue execution of the consent judgment against the company, not to pierce the corporate veil. Consequently, the applica…
Source excerpt
