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.
A preliminary objection by the respondent set out to expose the lack of due diligence on the part of the appellant. The respondent’s claim was that the appellant’s records were fundamentally defective and incompetent. This was because the records of the appellant were issued signed by "N. Nwanodi & Co," (which is not a legal practitioner recognized by law in Nigeria) instead of counsel’s actual name.
The counsel for appellant stated that the habit of legal practitioners' merely signing court processes in their firm's name without indicating their actual name has been allowed by this court in many cases. Thus, it was an over-adherence to technicality to annul the process improperly filed.
The respondent sought this court to employ purposive interpretation of sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act (the act) that would lead to the conclusion that the record filed was indeed fundamentally defective.
This court upheld the preliminary objection of the respondent. It held that the appellant's' notice of appeal was fundamentally defective. It concluded that the purpose of sections 2(1) and 24 of the act was to ensure accountability on the part of a legal practitioner who signs court processes.
This appeal was against the decision of the
Court of Appeal which upheld the ruling of the
High Court ordering the appellant as a
guarantor to pay over Shs. One billion to the
respondent on behalf of Uganda Commercial
Bank (UCB). The background to the appeal is
that the respondent filed against UCB and the
appellant undertook to pay the decretal sum in
case the matter was resolved in favor of the
respondent. The matter resolved in favor of the
respondent but UCB sought and was granted
the leave to appeal and successfully stayed the
decree but on appeal the counsel for the
appellant instituted the suit in the name of
Stanbic Bank which matter was resolved in the
dismissal of the appeal. The respondent applied
in the High Court to effect the honoring of the
pledge as he had become liable as a surety but
the judge allowed the respondent at application
to appeal the decision. That appeal was
dismissed and was the subject of this appeal on
the grounds that the grounds raised at appeal
hadn’t been conclusively determined.