Abex Tour Safaris Company Ltd v Sabiiti Anor (MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO 28 OF 2020)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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
A suit brought against a non-existent party is incompetent and must be struck out. The error cannot be cured by amendment where the party sued does not legally exist. A non-existent company sued in error cannot be awarded costs where the actual entity served failed to responsibly clarify the misdescription in its written statement of defence and instead sought to deny liability through a backdoor application.
Outcome
Plaint struck out for being brought against a non-existent party; application allowed; no order as to costs
Facts
On 16 January 2020 at Kaigo Trading Centre along Kagadi-Hoima road, Motor Vehicle UAH 022X allegedly belonging to Abex Tour & Safaris Company Limited and driven by Issa Kabugo collided with Motor Vehicle UBF 854Z, a Toyota Wish, resulting in the death of Tinkibyenda, a passenger. The police accident report identified the owner of UAH 022X as Abex Safaris and Tours Ltd. The respondents filed Civil Suit No. 14 of 2020 against Abex Tour & Safaris Company Limited claiming damages for negligence. The applicant then filed this application seeking to strike out the plaint on the ground that Abex Tour & Safaris Company Limited is not a registered company under the Companies Act and does not legally exist. The respondents had mistakenly served court process on Luutu Kiiza, Managing Director of Abex Safaris and Tours (U) Ltd, believing him to be the Managing Director of the company they intended to sue.
Issues
- Whether a suit brought against a non-existent company is competent and can be sustained.
- Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action against the applicant company.
- Whether the applicant, being a non-existent entity, is entitled to costs of the application and the suit.
Orders
- Civil Suit No. 0014 of 2020 struck out for being incompetent.
- Application allowed.
- Each party to meet their own costs in the suit and application.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
Cases cited (3)
- Trustees of Rubaga Miracle Centre v Mulangira Ssimbwa (Miscellaneous Application No. 576 of 2006)
- Attorney General v Sabric Building & Decorating Contractors Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 299 of 2012)
- Professor Ephraim Kwabu Kamuntu v Attorney General (Land Civil Suit No. 38 of 2016)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.