Uganda Case Law

Khurram v Diamond Trust Bank (U) Limited & 2 Others (Company Cause 30052 of 2023)

Khurram v Diamond Trust Bank (U) Limited & 2 Others (Company Cause 30052 of 2023) [2024] UGRSB 6 (17 April 2024)

Court

Uganda Registration Services Bureau

Case number

Company Cause 30052 of 2023

Judge

Muliisa Solomon - Senior Registration Officer

The Registrar overruled preliminary objections in a company investigation application, holding that the procedure was proper, the applicant had locus, and jurisdiction was not barred by pending probate proceedings.

• Company Investigation
• Locus Standi
• Jurisdiction Of Registrar
• Succession And Estate
• Procedure For Applications
• Company-investigation

Suryakant Manibhai v Gume and Another

Suryakant Manibhai v Gume and Another (Civil Suit No. 98 of 2017) [2022] UGHCCD 275 (16 November 2022)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit No. 98 of 2017

Judge

Bukirwa, J

The court found that Civil Suit No. 98 of 2017 had automatically abated under Order 17 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2019, as no step was taken for over six months after the mandatory scheduling conference. The Deputy Registrar's reinstatement of the suit was illegal, as he was functus officio after the abatement order and lacked jurisdiction to reinstate the suit. The only remedy for the plaintiff was to file a fresh suit, not to seek reinstatement. The court held that the reinstatement was contrary to law and expunged it from the record, upholding the preliminary objectio…

Source excerpt

• Abatement Of Suit
• Reinstatement Of Abated Suit
• Jurisdiction Of Registrar
• Procedure For Applications
• Land Ownership Disputes

Mutesasira & 8 Ors v Nakalema (Misc Application No. 0256 of 2016)

Mutesasira & 8 Ors v Nakalema (Misc Application No. 0256 of 2016) [2017] UGHCLD 359 (30 October 2017)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Misc Application No. 0256 of 2016

Judge

Kawesa, J

The court held that the application was procedurally incompetent as it was wrongly brought by chamber summons instead of notice of motion, contrary to the Civil Procedure Rules. Furthermore, the applicants failed to provide sufficient cause to justify setting aside the dismissal order, as there was no credible evidence of counsel's mistake or any rebuttal of the respondent's affidavit. The court found that the same counsel whose negligence led to the dismissal was again responsible for the procedural error in the present application, and this combination of errors placed the case outside the…

Source excerpt

• Setting Aside Dismissal
• Procedure For Applications
• Bibanja Eviction
• Mistake Of Counsel