Wakilii

Thalion International Limited v Vivo Energy Uganda Limited (Civil Application 16 of 2022)

Supreme Court · [2022] UGSC 36 · 2022 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice of the Supreme Court for substitution of parties in respect of an intended appeal from the Court of Appeal
Decision
Application granted; parties substituted to reflect the applicant as successor in title to the appellant and Vivo Energy Uganda Limited as the renamed respondent in the intended appeal

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

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

On an application before a single Justice, the Supreme Court held that parties to an intended appeal may be substituted where one party has assigned its rights in the litigation by deed of assignment and the other has lawfully changed its name. The respondent conceded both the change of name from Shell Uganda Limited to Vivo Energy Uganda Limited and the assignment of the appellant's rights to the applicant, and raised no strong reason against substitution. Although filing multiple applications on the same subject in different courts amounted to an abuse of court process, this was not fatal and occasioned no prejudice. The application to substitute the parties was granted, with costs to abide the result of the appeal.

Facts

Mercator Enterprises Limited succeeded against Shell Uganda Limited in Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 107 of 2017. Shell Uganda Limited had changed its name to Vivo Energy Uganda Limited, evidenced by a gazette notice and corrigendum approved by the Registrar of Companies. On 31 July 2019, Mercator Enterprises Limited assigned all its rights, title and interest in the litigation to the applicant, Thalion International Limited, by a deed of assignment. The applicant intended to appeal the Court of Appeal decision and filed a Notice of Appeal. It applied to the Supreme Court to substitute itself for Mercator Enterprises Limited and Vivo Energy Uganda Limited for Shell Uganda Limited so the intended appeal would reflect the correct parties. The respondent conceded both the name change and the assignment but contended the applicant was a stranger to the judgment and that multiple applications filed in the High Court and Court of Appeal amounted to abuse of process.

Issues

  1. Whether the parties to the intended appeal ought to be substituted to reflect the applicant as successor in title to the appellant and Vivo Energy Uganda Limited as the renamed respondent.
  2. What order should be made as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for substitution of parties is granted.
  • Costs to abide the result of the appeal.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Substitution of Parties — Assignment of Interest by Deed
Where a party to litigation assigns all its rights, title and interest in the subject matter by a duly executed deed of assignment, the assignee as successor in title may be substituted as a party for the proper conduct of an intended appeal, in the interests of justice.
Civil Procedure — Substitution of Parties — Stage at which Application may be Brought
An application to substitute parties may be brought at any stage of the proceedings, including at the stage of an intended appeal.
Company Law — Change of Company Name — Continuity of Legal Identity
A company that lawfully changes its name, as confirmed by gazette notice and approval of the Registrar of Companies, remains the same legal entity and is the proper party to litigation in its new name.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Court Process — Effect of Multiple Applications
The filing of multiple applications on the same subject matter in different courts amounts to an abuse of court process, but is not necessarily fatal where it occasions no prejudice and has no serious legal consequences.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.42
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.43
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.50
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 24 r.9(1)
  • Indian Code of Civil Procedure Order 22 r.10

Cases cited (1)

  • Catherine Muwonge Magezi v Allinus Properties (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of 2022)
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.