Commercial Law Index

This case considered whether the appellant had obtained the title of suit property by fraud. The court considered the grounds which would constitute fraud. It was found that fraud means actual fraud or some act of dishonesty. The court held that fraud must be proved strictly, the burden being heavier than on a balance of probabilities generally applied in civil matters. Accordingly, the fraud requires some act of dishonesty.

This case looked at the whether the veil of incorporation could be lifted and the defendants held liable for the debt of the company as a result of their alleged fraudulent dealings.

The court considered that when the device of incorporation is used for some illegal or improper purpose, the court may disregard the principle that a company is an independent legal entity and lift the veil of corporate identity. A corporate personality can never be used as a cloak or a mask for fraud. The veil of incorporation will be lifted where it is proved that the company is being misused by its directors to perpetuate fraud. 

The standard of proof in fraud cases requires a higher degree of probability than the proof required to demonstrate negligence.

The applicant failed to adequately plead the allegation of fraud. Accordingly, the veil of incorporation could not be lifted. The case was dismissed with costs.

This was an action claiming monies allegedly siphoned from the plaintiff’s bank account with the participation and/or collusion of the defendant; and damages for the defendant’s breach of the fiduciary duty as branch manager. The defendant filed a counterclaim that his continued suspension and dismissal was unlawful. 

The issues for consideration were whether the defendant caused financial loss to the plaintiff; whether the suspension and/or dismissal was lawful; and the available remedies.

Regarding the first issue, the court held that the suit rested on the allegation that the defendant kept 26 cheques. The court held that it was not proved that the defendant kept the cheques beyond the three days alleged by the plaintiff; however the court found that the defendant knew the cheques were kept beyond the three days. As a result, the defendant was jointly liable with a Mr Patrick Kigongo.

On the second issue, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to suspend the defendant as he was charged with a criminal offence. Management may dismiss an employee who was facing criminal prosecution if their continued employment would prejudice the interests of the bank. However, the defendant was suspended without pay contrary to regulation 30 of the terms and conditions of service; and the termination was without notice of disciplinary action, without a right of defence, and was thus unlawful.

The plaintiff was awarded general damages. The defendant was awarded his full salary from the date of suspension until the date of termination.
 

In 1998 the appellant filed a suit against the respondent, to which the responded reacted with a counter-claim. The appellant’s claim was withdrawn in 2006 but the respondent’s counter-claim was not. The trial judge ruled in favour of the respondent. The appellants were dissatisfied with the decision and filed an appeal.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the burden of proof of fraud alleged in the counter-suit rested on the appellants. The court held that the burden of proof rests on the party who alleges that fraud was committed. In this case, the appellants had withdrawn their case against the respondent and only the respondent’s counter-claim remained. Consequently, the court upheld the appellant’s complaint and placed the burden to prove that fraud was committed on the respondent.

The court then considered whether the lease of the suit property to the first appellant was fraudulent and reviewed the lower court’s order in cancellation. The court held that fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved and cannot be left to be inferred from the facts. Neither party attempted to prove fraud against the other. Therefore, the courts held that the lease of the suit property to the first appellant was not fraudulent and that the trial judge should not have cancelled the first appellant’s certificate of title.

The court also considered whether the respondent’s lease agreement was breached because the first appellant denied the respondent possession of the suit land and reviewed the lower court’s order to extend the respondents lease. The court found that the respondent was in breach of contract and, therefore, had no right of possession and overturned the trial judge’s order to extend the respondent’s lease because the respondent had failed to request it in due course.

All grounds of the appeal succeeded.

In this case, the court made a determination on an application to set aside a consent judgment that made provision for share transfer, land transfer and a special resolution.

The court determined whether the fourth defendant had the authority to enter into the consent judgment. The court applied the indoor management rule to make a finding that the fourth defendant had such authority and that parties outside did not have to enquire about the fourth respondent’s authority.

The applicants raised an objection that the consent judgment contained unpleaded issues in the prior suit by including legal entities or companies which were not parties to the suit. This objection failed since the parties had elected to be bound by what they agreed.

On the issue of whether the fourth respondent had colluded with the other respondents to defraud the applicant, the court held that it lacked merit since the fourth respondent was duly authorised by the applicants to represent them. The applicants claimed that there was no special meeting to sanction the change of name and offering the first applicant interest in land but on the evidence tendered, the court was satisfied that the meeting took place.

The court dismissed the application to set aside the consent judgment thereby denying the consequential order sought to set aside transactions validated by the consent judgment. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs.

The issue was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to order the freezing of the bank accounts of the applicant.

The dispute emanated from an order to freeze the applicant’s three bank accounts after allegations of money laundering by the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC). The applicant was accused of illegally receiving approximately US$ 43 000 and remittance of US$ 39 000 from a Canadian company. The applicant tried without success to apply to defreeze the bank accounts. 

The applicant further applied arguing that the Anti-Money Laundering Act (the act) only allowed the bank accounts to be frozen for one year.  It pointed out that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction when it dismissed the application because the statutory period of 12 months had lapsed. They also challenged the decision to freeze all the accounts including money that was not part of the laundering investigation on the basis that it was an infringement of the right to natural justice.

The FIC argued that that investigation of allegation of fraud, which is criminal in nature, is not affected by time constraints.

The court held that one year was enough for FIC to investigate any alleged wrong-doing. It ruled that High Court lacked the jurisdiction to order the continuous freezing of the accounts of the applicant beyond the one year. It further ruled that moneys which stood in the accounts of the applicants before any alleged illegal transfers into the accounts should not form part of the freezing order.

The appellant was charged and found guilty of obtaining money under false pretenses; he then brought an appeal against the ruling of the High Court before the appellate court. 

The court was faced with two issues, the first being whether the High Court was justified in convicting the appellant on allegations of misrepresentation not covered in the charge. The second issue was whether the high court was correct to convict the appellant for misrepresentation and seize his property.

The court held that the High Court was justified in convicting the appellant and that the allegations of misrepresentation were covered in the charge. The court further held that the High Court made no error in seizing the appellant’s property following the conviction.

By evaluating witness testimonies and the evidence led in the High Court, the court stated that the appellant had indeed misrepresented himself to the witnesses so they could part with monies and invests with the appellant. The court was of the view that sufficient evidence was led in the High Court which justified the conviction of the appellant. Regarding the seizure of property, the court stated that the High Court exercised its inherent powers to make an order of forfeiture since the appellant bought and used the property to carry out his illegal operations for which he was convicted.

The appeal was unsuccessful and the judgement of the High Court (conviction and sentence) was upheld.