Wakilii

Abdulrahman Elamin v Dhabi Group (Civil Appeal No. 215 of 2013)

Court of Appeal · [2017] UGCA 60 · 2017 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court (Commercial Division) ruling upholding a preliminary objection and rejecting the plaint under Order 7 rule 11 for failure to disclose a cause of action
Decision
Appeal dismissed; plaint remains rejected, though the appellant may present a fresh plaint under Order 7 rule 13

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 8 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the plaint disclosed no cause of action against the respondents. The 2nd and 3rd respondents were distinct corporate entities not privy to the contract, which had been concluded on behalf of the disclosed principal Warid Telecom International LLC; one who is not a party to a contract cannot be sued for its breach, and they were not necessary parties since only damages, not specific performance affecting their shareholding, was sought. The 1st respondent (Dhabi Group) had no legal existence within the court's jurisdiction, and a suit by or against a non-existent entity is a nullity that cannot be cured by substituting a different existing party through amendment.

Facts

The appellant facilitated a high-level meeting with Ugandan State authorities to discuss the diversified business interests of the 1st respondent, Dhabi Group, a United Arab Emirates based conglomerate and holding company of the 2nd and 3rd respondents. In return, an undertaking was made by email to allot the appellant a 3% shareholding in Warid Telecom Uganda Limited, then valued at USD 1,500,000. The communication, signed by the Financial Manager, disclosed Warid Telecom International LLC as the principal on whose behalf it was made. The shares were never given. The appellant sued the three respondents in the High Court (Commercial Division) for breach of contract, general damages and interest. The 2nd and 3rd respondents were not party to the email communication, and the 1st respondent was not incorporated in Uganda. The High Court upheld a preliminary objection that no cause of action was disclosed and rejected the plaint under Order 7 rule 11.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action in breach of contract against the 2nd and 3rd respondents who were not parties to the contract.
  2. Whether the 2nd and 3rd respondents were necessary parties to be joined to the suit.
  3. Whether the 1st respondent had legal existence within the jurisdiction of the Ugandan courts.
  4. Whether a non-existent party can be substituted by amendment to cure the defect in the plaint.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Decision of the trial Judge upheld.
  • Plaint remains struck out/rejected under Order 7 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • Costs to the respondents in this Court and in the Court below.

Key headnotes

Contract Law — Privity of Contract — Liability of Non-Parties for Breach
A person who is not a party to a contract cannot, save for recognised exceptions, sue or be sued for its breach; such a party may at most be liable in tort for disrupting performance, but not under the contract itself.
Contract Law — Disclosed Principal — Correct Party to be Sued
Where a contract is concluded by an agent on behalf of a disclosed principal, the disclosed principal is the correct party to be sued for breach of that contract.
Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Necessary Parties
A party qualifies as a necessary party only where the orders sought would legally affect its interests, or where a defendant cannot effectually defend without it joined; a claim for damages alone, not affecting a party's shareholding, does not make a corporate entity a necessary party.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Rejection of Plaint and Disposal of Points of Law
A court may dispose of a point of law, including whether a plaint discloses a cause of action, at or before the hearing under Order 6 rule 28, and a party is bound by its pleadings under Order 6 rule 7.
Civil Procedure — Non-Existent Parties — Nullity and Substitution by Amendment
A non-existent entity cannot sue or be sued, and any suit by or against it is a nullity; a plaint naming a wrong or non-existent party cannot be cured by amendment substituting a different existing party where this affects the substance of the parties' identity.
Company Law — Corporate Personality — Foreign Unregistered Companies
A company not incorporated under the laws of Uganda has no existence as a body corporate within the jurisdiction and cannot be sued in the Ugandan courts, separate corporate entities not being liable for undertakings made by another.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Judicature Act s.11
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 rule 11
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 7
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 28
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 1 rule 10
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 1 rule 10(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 1 rule 10(4)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 rule 13

Cases cited (4)

  • Kitgum District Administration v Print Supplied Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 44 of 1988)
  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd [1999] 1 EA 55
  • Kayanja v New India Assurance Company Ltd [1968] EA 295
  • The Fort Hall Bakery Supply Co v Frederick Muigai Wangoe [1959] 1 EA 474
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.