Uganda Case Law

East Africa Foam Limited v Attorney General and 2 Others

East Africa Foam Limited v Attorney General and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 216 of 2013) [2021] UGCA 106 (5 October 2021)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 216 of 2013

Judge

Monica K. Mugenyi, JA, Kiryabwire, JA, Kasule, JA

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant, through its managing director, used the names 'East Africa Foam Limited' and 'East African Foam Limited' interchangeably in its dealings, including the execution of the debenture and mortgage, and benefited from the loan secured thereby. The evidence established that the managing director was literate in English and fully understood the agreements, negating the claim of protection under the Illiterates Protection Act. The debenture and mortgage were validly executed pursuant to company resolutions authorizing the signatories, and the absence of a…

Source excerpt

• Company Name Misdescription
• Mortgage Enforcement
• Debenture Execution
• Caveat Removal
• Corporate Authority
• Estoppel

Uganda Posts and Telecommunications Corporation v International Television

Uganda Posts and Telecommunications Corporation v International Television (Civil Suit 93 of 1997) [1998] UGHC 31 (25 August 1998)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit 93 of 1997

Judges

Ntabgoba, PJ

The High Court of Uganda refused to dismiss a telecom services suit, granted the plaintiff an adjournment to allow new counsel to study the case, and dismissed leave to appeal.

• Contract Enforceability
• Corporate Authority
• Misrepresentation
• Company Seal Requirements
• Adjournment Procedure
• Contract-enforceability

Uganda Posts and Telecommunications Corporation v International Television and Another

Uganda Posts and Telecommunications Corporation v International Television and Another (Civil Suit 93 of 1997) [1998] UGHC 21 (4 August 1998)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit 93 of 1997

Judges

Ntabgoba, PJ

The court found that the plaintiff was not suing on behalf of the Government or INTELSAT but in its own right as the national telecommunications provider. Documentary evidence from the Minister confirmed the plaintiff's authority to deal with INTELSAT. The absence of a company seal did not render the agreement void, as the Companies Act and relevant case law allow corporations to contract without a seal in ordinary business transactions. The defendants, having benefited from the contract and continued use of INTELSAT facilities, could not rely on technicalities to avoid payment. The prelimina…

Source excerpt

• Contract Enforcement
• Corporate Authority
• Preliminary Objections
• Adjournment Practice