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
Bemuga Forwarders Limited (Companies Cause 33 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 15 (25 February 2025)
The High Court rectified the company register to remove an untraceable shareholder, placing his shares in trust for him and allowing resale if unclaimed after three years.
Kagaba Kakyali v Mpanga Tea Growers Factory Limited (HCT-01-CV-MC 6 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 753 (16 August 2024)
The court found that while the Respondent company faces genuine financial and logistical challenges, repeated applications for extension without evidence of efforts to convene an Annual General Meeting are not in the best interests of the shareholders. The absence of AGMs for over three years is unacceptable, as it deprives shareholders of their principal forum for accountability and participation in company affairs. The court held that directors must not use financial constraints as a perpetual excuse to avoid convening AGMs, and that the company must find alternative mechanisms to ensure sh…
Source excerpt
Victoria Constrution Limited & Another v Yiga & 3 Others (Civil Suit 212 of 2019) [2024] UGCommC 212 (31 July 2024)
The High Court struck out a company suit for want of authority, holding that the 2nd plaintiff lacked standing to sue on behalf of the company.
Magero v Odaka Mundawawara and 10 Others (Miscellaneous Application 214 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 97 (20 October 2023)
The High Court dismissed Steven Magero’s application to cancel company resolutions and restrain payment of funds, finding no proven prejudice, abuse, or invalidity.
Chen JianWen and Others v Bang Cheng Investment Company Limited and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 531 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 27 (9 August 2023)
The High Court granted attachment before judgment over specified company land, trucks, and bank funds after finding a prima facie claim and a real risk of asset dissipation.
Chen JianWen and Others v Bang Cheng Investment Company Limited and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 530 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 26 (9 August 2023)
The High Court held that the applicants had locus standi and jurisdiction, but dismissed their bid to have Uganda Registration Services Bureau manage the company.
Cliff Masagazi v Afriland First Bank (U) Limited (Company Cause No. 8 of 2020) [2021] UGHC 48 (24 June 2021)
The court found that while the petition disclosed a cause of action, the petitioner failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his 15% shares were paid up, either in cash or by valid non-cash consideration. The evidence, including the annual return of allotment, was inconclusive and riddled with errors, and there was no contract or board resolution supporting non-cash payment. The court held that the respondent's actions, including calls on unpaid shares and exclusion from certain meetings, were in accordance with the Articles of Association and did not amount to oppression or unfair…
Source excerpt
Ofwono & Anor v African Cable Networks Ltd (HCT-00-CV-CI-0025 -2015) [2016] UGHCCD 21 (25 April 2016)
The High Court of Uganda found unfair prejudice in the management of a company and ordered an AGM, relief on company conduct, and costs for the petitioners.
Fred Kirenga V Kang Li Manufacturing Ltd (Misc. Application No. 1184 of 2014) [2016] UGHCLD 83 (8 February 2016)
The High Court dismissed an application to strike out a suit and remove a caveat, holding that a company has separate legal personality and standing to sue.
Charles Twagira v Oil Seeds Uganda Limited (Civil Application No. 125 of 2002) [2003] UGCA 39 (30 June 2003)
The court found that Mr Remmy Kasule's claim was distinct and not affected by the ruling appealed against; therefore, his non-joinder as a party to the appeal did not render the appeal incompetent. The appeal was properly constituted between the parties whose rights were directly affected. On the issue of authority, the court held that the respondent company, through its constitution, vested management powers in its directors, and the necessary quorum of two directors authorized the filing of the appeal. The applicant, as the majority shareholder and defendant, could not be expected to author…
Source excerpt
