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
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.
Ntinda Industrial Estate Development Association Limited v Kampala General Furnishing Limited (Miscellaneous Application 424 of 2021) [2023] UGHCLD 141 (31 May 2023)
The High Court struck out a plaint brought by a shareholder against a company because the claim should have been brought by petition under the Companies Act.
Ntare v kiboga west livestock cooperative society & anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 249 of 2012) [2013] UGHCCD 154 (22 November 2013)
The High Court set aside a personal costs order against Nathan Ntare, holding he had standing as an aggrieved party and should have been heard before being condemned.
Kanyeihamba & 320 Ors v Nzeyi & 2 Ors (HCT-00-CC-CS 361 of 2010) [2013] UGCommC 78 (2 May 2013)
The court found that the subject matter and parties in the present suit and the Constitutional Petition are not identical, reducing the risk of conflicting orders or multiplicity of proceedings. The suit primarily concerns corporate governance and historical actions regarding the conversion of KBC to NBC, while the Constitutional Petition addresses regulatory actions by Bank of Uganda. However, certain remedies sought in the suit, such as rectification of the company register and repossession of assets, directly affect the liquidation process and cannot proceed until the Constitutional Petiti…
Source excerpt
Eng.Yashwant and Another v Ngude Odaka and 5 Others (HCT-OO-CC-CS 365 of 2007) [2008] UGCommC 86 (11 March 2008)
The court found that while the defendants raised numerous procedural objections, the plaintiffs' suit was properly brought as a derivative action to address alleged fraud and mismanagement within the company. The procedural requirements cited by the defendants did not warrant dismissal, as the court has wide discretion under Section 33 of the Judicature Act and Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities. The objections did not dispose of the whole claim, and no prejudice or miscarriage of justice was occasioned by proceeding…
Source excerpt
Joel Odong Amen & Anor v DrOcero andrew & Anor (HCT-00-CC-CS 602 of 2004) [2006] UGCommC 51 (30 November 2006)
The court held that while the general rule is that only the company can sue for wrongs done to it (Foss v Harbottle), there are well-established exceptions, particularly where the wrongdoers are in control and prevent the company from acting. In this case, the plaintiffs, as minority shareholders, alleged that the majority shareholders (defendants) expropriated company funds and refused to account for or distribute the plaintiffs' 40% share of the sale proceeds. The court found that the pleadings disclosed sufficient allegations of wrongdoing and breach of trust by the majority, and that the…
Source excerpt
Allied Bank International Ltd v Sadru Kara and Abdul Kara (Civil Suit No. 191 of 2002) [2002] UGCommC 10 (30 June 2002)
The High Court of Uganda held that minority shareholders could maintain a derivative action without leave of court, and overruled a preliminary objection.
