Uganda Case Law

Emoru & Co. Advocates v ISS Global Frieght Forwarding Company Uganda SMC Limited

Emoru & Co. Advocates v ISS Global Frieght Forwarding Company Uganda SMC Limited (Miscellaneous Application 1843 of 2022) [2024] UGCommC 53 (8 January 2024)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 1843 of 2022

Judge

Ocaya, J

The court found that, despite the applicant's assertion that Moses Byaruhanga was not a partner at the time of receiving the funds, evidence showed he continued to use the applicant's email domain and signature as a partner, and payments were made to the applicant's account. The law of partnership and agency dictates that a firm is liable for acts of a partner or a person held out as a partner in the ordinary course of business. The applicant's defence, while unsatisfactory in parts, raised triable issues regarding partnership liability, apparent authority, and the propriety of the suit. Ther…

Source excerpt

• Summary Suit Procedure
• Leave To Appear And Defend
• Partnership Liability
• Vicarious Liability
• Agency In Law Firms

British American Tobacco Uganda Ltd v Muwema & 2 Ors

British American Tobacco Uganda Ltd v Muwema & 2 Ors (Civil Suit No. 751 of 2014) [2018] UGCommC 25 (3 September 2018)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit No. 751 of 2014

The High Court rejected preliminary objections in a refund dispute over funds allegedly received by advocates, finding no res judicata or basis to stay the suit.

• Res Judicata
• Advocate Liability
• Deed Of Settlement
• Stay Of Proceedings
• Partnership Liability
• Res-judicata

Matovu & Matovu Co Advocates v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCT-00-CC-CA 7 of 2006)

Matovu & Matovu Co Advocates v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCT-00-CC-CA 7 of 2006) [2006] UGCommC 33 (27 September 2006)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-00-CC-CA 7 of 2006

The High Court upheld a third party agency notice for VAT arrears against a partnership partner, holding that section 71 of the VAT Act allows collection from any partner.

• Vat Liability
• Partnership Liability
• Third Party Agency Notice
• Joint And Several Liability
• Vat-liability
• Partnership-liability

Gatete and Another v Kyobe

Gatete and Another v Kyobe (Civil Appeal 7 of 2005) [2006] UGSC 26 (21 September 2006)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 7 of 2005

Judge

J.W.N.Tsekooko, JSC, Karokora, JSC, Mulenga, JSC, Kanyeihamba, JSC

The Supreme Court of Uganda held that service on one partner did not amount to effective service on all partners, and set aside a consent judgment entered in a summary suit.

• Summary Suits
• Service Of Summons
• Partnership Liability
• Consent Judgments
• Triable Issues
• Service-of-summons

Trench and Another v Edyvean (C.A. 1/1934.)

Trench and Another v Edyvean (C.A. 1/1934.) [1937] EACA 94 (1 January 1937)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

C.A. 1/1934.

Judge

Abrahams CJ, Ag P (Uganda), Lucie-Smith Ag CJ (Kenya), Sheridan CJ

The Court of Appeal held that a farming partner lacked implied authority to bind co-partners to a borrowing agreement, and the respondent’s contract claim failed for want of consideration.

• Partnership Liability
• Implied Authority Of Partner
• Failure Of Consideration
• Agency In Partnership
• Contractual Obligations
• Equitable Recovery

Ram v Ram and Others (C.C No. 276 of 1933)

Ram v Ram and Others (C.C No. 276 of 1933) [1935] EACA 148 (1 January 1935)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

C.C No. 276 of 1933

Judge

Sheridan CJ

The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to judgment in default of defence against the firm because the first and third defendants should be allowed to amend their defence to clarify it is on behalf of the firm, following the authority in Ellis v. Wadeson. The court further held that the second defendant, despite not appearing under protest, was not precluded from denying partnership, as the relevant rule was not intended to remove such rights and the parties had agreed to leave the issue of his liability for later determination. Finally, the court found that the defendants' denial…

Source excerpt

• Partnership Liability
• Firm Defence Pleadings
• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Appearance Under Protest

Lakha and Others Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd (Appeal No. 38 of 1927)

Lakha and Others Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd (Appeal No. 38 of 1927) [1927] EACA 1 (1 January 1927)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Appeal No. 38 of 1927

Judge

Russell CJ

The Privy Council held that the minor sons were admitted to the partnership by their guardian and thus their shares in the partnership property were liable for the firm's debts, even though they were not personally liable until attaining majority. The house in question was found to be a partnership asset, and the managing partner had authority under section 251 of the Zanzibar Contract Decree to execute the mortgage binding the firm. The purported repudiation by the minors upon attaining majority was insufficient to relieve them of liability, as it did not constitute a proper public notice of…

Source excerpt

• Partnership Liability
• Minor Partners
• Mortgage Of Partnership Property
• Customary Law On Maintenance
• Succession And Inheritance
• Powers Of Guardian

Walji v Jiwa and Co. (C.A. 20/1927.)

Walji v Jiwa and Co. (C.A. 20/1927.) [1927] EACA 49 (1 January 1927)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

C.A. 20/1927.

Judge

Guthrie-Smith, J. (Uganda), Pickering J, Tomlinson CJ

The majority of the Court held that a receiving order made against a firm operates against all partners, including those whose status as partners was unknown at the time of the order, provided the proceedings were taken against the firm. The Court found that the Bankruptcy Act and Rules do not require that all partners be known at the time of the receiving order, and that a secret and undischarged partnership cannot defeat the just claim of the creditor. The order of adjudication may be made against a subsequently identified partner individually, as long as there is a valid receiving order ou…

Source excerpt

• Bankruptcy Adjudication
• Partnership Liability
• Receiving Order Operation
• Service Of Process
• Firm Vs Individual Bankruptcy

Walji v Official Receiver of the Bankrupt Estate of Kankubai Alladina Giga

Walji v Official Receiver of the Bankrupt Estate of Kankubai Alladina Giga (Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1927) [1927] EACA 4 (1 January 1927)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1927

Judge

Guthrie-Smith J, Pickering J, Tomlinson CJ

The majority of the Court of Appeal held that a receiving order made against a firm operates against all persons who were partners at the date of the order, even if their identity was unknown at the time. The court found that the Bankruptcy Act and Rules permit proceedings against a firm and that subsequent identification of a partner does not preclude adjudication against that partner individually. The court reasoned that a secret and undischarged partnership cannot defeat the just claim of a creditor, and that the receiving order and adjudication were valid against Jiwa Mulji as a partner.…

Source excerpt

• Bankruptcy Proceedings
• Partnership Liability
• Receiving Order
• Adjudication Of Bankruptcy