Uganda Case Law

Kapeeka Coffee Works Limited and Another v Non -Performing Assets Recovery Trust

Kapeeka Coffee Works Limited and Another v Non -Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Civil Appeal 53 of 2000) [2001] UGCA 21 (2 March 2001)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 53 of 2000

Judge

Okello, JA, Mpagi-Bahigeine, JA, Engwau, JA

The Court of Appeal held that the respondent's amended plaint failed to comply with regulation 4(b) of S.I. No. 76/95, which mandates that notice of assignment in favour of the Trust must be forwarded by the bank to the debtor in the prescribed form. The plaint only pleaded notice of intention to sue, not notice of assignment, and did not demonstrate compliance with the statutory requirement. This omission is fatal, as it constitutes non-compliance with a mandatory provision of law, thereby rendering the plaint defective and disclosing no cause of action against the appellants. The appeal was…

Source excerpt

• Cause Of Action
• Assignment Of Debt
• Mandatory Statutory Compliance
• Notice Requirements
• Non Performing Assets
• Pleading Defects

Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust v Kapeeka Coffee Works Limited and 2 Others

Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust v Kapeeka Coffee Works Limited and 2 Others (Tribunal Case No. 40 of 1996) [2000] UGPPDPAAT 1 (28 March 2000)

Court

Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal

Case number

Tribunal Case No. 40 of 1996

Judges

A.O .Ouma, chairperson, G.S Lule, memeber, O'bokk, member

The Tribunal overruled a preliminary objection, holding that the pleadings and party liability issues required evidence at trial and should proceed on the merits.

• Cause Of Action
• Assignment Of Debt
• Corporate Liability
• Non Performing Assets
• Cause-of-action
• Preliminary-objection

Paul J. Erongot v N.P.A.R.T

Paul J. Erongot v N.P.A.R.T (Civil Misc. Application No. 17 of 1997) [1997] UGCA 10 (18 November 1997)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Misc. Application No. 17 of 1997

The court held that Section 17(4) of the Non-Performing Assets Recovery Statute, 1994, authorizes the application of written laws applicable to appeals from the High Court in civil cases, including Rule 82 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1996. Rule 82(2) allows exclusion of the period required for preparation and delivery of the record of proceedings, provided the application for the record was made in writing, served on the respondent, and proof of service is retained. The evidence showed that the application for the record was made and served in time, and the record was completed and the appea…

Source excerpt

• Appeal Time Limits
• Statutory Interpretation
• Non Performing Assets
• Record Of Appeal Requirements