 |
 |
 |
The Commercial Case Law Index is a collection of judgments from African countries on topics relating to commercial legal practice. The collection aims to provide a snapshot of commercial legal practice in a country, rather than present solely traditionally "reportable" cases. The index currently covers 400 judgments from Uganda, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana and South Africa.
Get started on finding judgments that are relevant to you by browsing the topic list on the left of the screen. Click the arrows next to the topic names to reveal a detailed list of sub-topics. Most judgments are accompanied by a short summary written by subject-matter expert postgraduate students from the University of Cape Town.
CITEC INTERNATION ESTATES LTD VS. EDICOMISA INTERNATIONAL INC. & ASS. (SC. 163 2006)[2017] NGSC 13 (9 June 2017) (SC. 163 2006) [1960] NGSC 1 (08 June 2017); 
CL Index Incorporation Company Law Foreign-Owned Company Parties Civil Procedure
Ndimwibo & Anor v Uganda Revenue Authority (CIVIL SUIT NO 424 OF 2012) [2017] UGCOMMC 39 (26 May 2017); CL Index Tax Law Taxation law Liability of Company Directors Company directors Company LawThe court was called upon to determine the authority of the Uganda Revenue Authority to transfer tax liability and collect money from bankers holding money for alleged offenders under the VAT Act.
The court decided 2 of 5 agreed points of law. Firstly, the court considered whether the defendant's decision to impose and transfer a tax liability of Uganda Shillings 5,553,634,271/= from SureTelecom Uganda Limited to the 1st plaintiff was legal. The court held that the purported transfer of liability from SureTelecom Uganda Limited was unlawful because it infringed the right of the first Plaintiff to be charged and tried before a court of law or an independent tribunal for the offence which the penal tax was imposed. The court agreed with the defendant that it was acceptable for a director of a company to be held liable for the offences of a company in absence of proof that they lacked knowledge of the offence or had tried to stop the commission thereof. However, the court noted that the Commissioner had compounded the offence prior to court proceedings without having an admission from the first plaintiff and thus violated his fundamental right to a fair hearing as envisaged by section 28 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the court found in favour of the first plaintiff. Secondly, the court considered whether the defendant’s act of issuing agency notices to and subsequently collecting USD 800,000 from the 2nd Plaintiff’s bankers in respect of the 1st Plaintiff’s tax liability is lawful or legal. Based on the determination of the previous issue, the court found in favour of both plaintiffs in this issue.
Wavenets Communication Ltd Vs Zimwe Enterprises Hard ware & Construction Ltd & 2 Ors (CIVIL SUIT NO 48 OF 2015) [2017] UGCOMMC 86 (23 August 2017); CL Index Corporate Veil Company Law Liability of Company Directors Company directors Company Law Fraud Delict and Tort LawThis case looked at the whether the veil of incorporation could be lifted and the defendants held liable for the debt of the company. The court looked at the instances when lifting of the corporate veil was applicable. There are three instances when the veil of incorporation can be lifted. 1) when a court in construing a statute, contract or other documents; 2) when the court is satisfied that the company is a mere façade concealing the true facts and 3) when it is established that the company is an authorized agent of its members/directors.
Further, the veil of incorporation can be lifted when the veil of incorporation is used as an instrument of fraud. The standard of proof required in cases of fraud is more onerous that the ordinary balance of probabilities. Section 20 of the Companies Act (‘the act’) empowers a court to lift the veil of incorporation against directors where there is any involvement in fraud by the directors. Fraud was defined to mean any act of dishonesty or actual fraud.
The court found in this case that the plaintiff was barred from instituting action against the defendants. Accordingly, the claim was dismissed with costs.
Guning v Naguru Tirupati Ltd & 5 Ors (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 232 OF 2017) [2017] UGCOMMC 122 (18 September 2017); CL Index Judgment Debt Civil Remedies Liability of Company Directors Company directors Company Law Corporate Veil Company LawThe applicant was directed to use other means to recover a judgment debt. The application was instituted to hold the second to sixth respondents liable for the first respondent’s debt as the controlling company of the first respondent.
The applicant argued that unless the corporate veil was lifted, and the second to sixth respondents were ordered to pay the debt, the applicant would not be able to recover the judgment debt.
The issues before the court were whether corporate veil could be lifted.
The court held that the first respondent company and second respondent company were one and the same. From the evidence, the third to sixth respondents were acting on behalf of the first and second respondents.
Grounds for lifting the veil were provided in section 20 of the Companies Act, and included where a company or its directors are involved in acts of fraud. The court held that the instruments of the first respondent were honestly executed. Failure to execute the court order was not reason for lifting the corporate veil as it was not evidence of fraud. However, a further ground for lifting the corporate veil was to prevent the deliberate evasion of contractual obligations. The court held that the third to sixth respondents’ resolve to sell the properties were attempts to prevent the realization of the judgment debt, and using the first respondent as a mask for fraud.
The application was granted.
Shmuel Hirshberg Muli v Aharon Li-Ran & 3 Ors ([node:field-casenumber]) [2017] UGCOMMC 140 (30 June 2017); CL Index Transfer of Shares Shares Company Law Contempt of Court Orders Civil ProcedureThe applicant sought a declaratory order stating that the first respondent was in contempt of a court order which restricted him from transferring, alienating and or disposing of the 60% shareholding in the third respondent company.
The court considered whether the first respondent was in contempt of court. It was held that the first respondent was indeed in contempt of an order issued by the same court in 2015.
When the first respondent argued that the transfer of shared occurred in 1997, the court examined the third respondent company’s annual returns from 2008 to 2015 which reflected share ownership to belong to two entities; Tanwood Ltd and Garwood Ltd. At the time neither Busa Ltd nor Queen Foreign Ltd appeared as shareholders. The court also examined a company search that was conducted in 2016 which reflected a change in shareholding; Queen Foreign Ltd was a majority shareholder. The court accepted the above as prima facie proof of contempt of court. The court relied on previous judgments that outlined the conditions that have to be met in order to legally prove that contempt of court occurred; it was held that all conditions were met.
As a result of contempt, the court disregarded the purported transfer of shares in the third respondent company and stated that the power of attorney had no effect whatsoever. The court awarded costs to the applicant. No fine was imposed.
Nile Energy Ltd Vs Phoenix Petroleum Ltd & 2 Ors (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 596 OF 2015) [2017] UGCOMMC 147 (25 July 2017); CL Index Corporate Veil Company Law Liability of Company Directors Company directors Company Law Tax Law Taxation law Fraud Delict and Tort LawAbdulrahman Elamin Vs Dhabi Group (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 15 OF 2013) [2017] UGCA 60 (16 November 2017); Joinder Parties Civil Procedure Amendment to Pleadings Pleadings Civil Procedure Company Law Separate Legal Personality Legal personality Company Law Breach of Contract Contract Law CL IndexThe appellant who undertook to invest and acquire shares in a telecom company brought an action
against the respondents for breach of contract, damages and interest. The appellant’s suit was dismissed
on a preliminary point of law as it disclosed no cause of action against the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents.
Nkwanzi Kalebu Vs Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd & 2 Ors (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 360 OF 2017) [2017] UGCA 65 (15 November 2017); Security For Loan Security Banking, Finance and Insurance Law Corporate Finance Company Law Burden of Proof Evidence Law CL IndexThe applicant brought an application for interim order against the respondents disposing of the
suit property fraudulently mortgaged by her husband without spousal consent the same being
matrimonial property. The applicant’s suit was dismissed by the trial court hence the appeal from
which the application arose.
Minister of Environmental Affairs v Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of South Africa NPC, Minister of Environmental Affairs v Recycling and Kusaga Taka Consulting (Proprietary) Limited (9675/2017, 10123/17)[2017] ZAWCHC 101 (15/09/2017) CL Index Winding Up of A Company Liquidation, insolvency and winding up Company Law Abuse of Legal Personality Legal personality Company Law Locus Standi Parties Civil ProcedureThe issue was whether it would be just and equitable to wind up the respondents in terms of s 81(1)(c)(ii) and s 81(d)(iii) read with s 157(1)(d) of the act on the grounds that executive directors of the first respondent unconsciously abused the corporate personality of the second respondent by acting unlawfully. The other issue was whether the minister had locus standi (the right or capacity to bring an action) to bring the application.
The court held that it was just and equitable to wind up a company if the company is conducting unlawful activities and where there is a deadlock between the parties. Further, that s 157 extends locus standi to a broad range of people.
The court found that there were just and equitable grounds to wind up the first respondent because there was a deadlock between the parties, unlawful misappropriation of public funds and non-disclosure. In that light, also wind up the second respondent because its existence depended on that of the first respondent. The court, also, found that the minister, as a member of the executive, had established the necessary locus standi to bring the application in the public interest in terms of s 157(1)(d).
Accordingly, the court granted the final liquidation and ordered that the costs of winding up include costs of the application.