Achom and 5 Others v Mothers Majeri Limited [2024] UGRSB 19
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
The tribunal dismissed a minority oppression petition brought by six minor shareholders through their legal guardian. The tribunal held that while the minors' shares were fully paid, the guardian's authority was limited by court order to receiving dividends only and did not extend to exercising full shareholder rights such as demanding meetings or inspecting books. The tribunal found no basis to direct payment of dividends where none had been declared by the company in accordance with its articles of association. The tribunal ruled that minors lack legal capacity to exercise shareholder rights independently and their guardian cannot exercise rights beyond those specifically granted by court order.
Outcome
Petition dismissed with no order as to costs
Facts
Six minor children, each holding 30 ordinary shares in Mother Majeri Limited, brought a petition through their legal guardian alleging minority oppression. The company was incorporated in 2001 with six founding members. The minors' shares were allotted in 2017 on the basis that they were biological children of the late George Opio, one of the founding members. The petitioners claimed they had never been paid dividends, were denied access to company accounts, and that the company failed to hold general meetings. The respondent company contended that the shares were unpaid and that meetings could not be held because two founding members (including George Opio) had died intestate and their legal representatives had not been appointed. The respondent also raised a preliminary objection that the guardian lacked locus to bring the petition. A guardianship order from the High Court permitted the guardian to receive and apply dividends for the minors but did not grant power to sell shares or exercise full shareholder rights.
Issues
- Whether the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner that is oppressive and prejudicial to the rights of the petitioners.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to access accounts of the company and to inspect the books of accounts.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to any remedies under the circumstances.
Orders
- Petition dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (13)
- Companies Act Cap 106 s.243
- Companies Act Cap 106 s.247
- Companies Act Cap 106 s.174(5)
- Companies Act Cap 106 s.81
- Companies Act Cap 106 s.150(3)
- Companies Act Cap 106 s.135
- Companies Act Cap 106 s.134(4)
- Companies Act Cap 106 s.67(2)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 32 Rule 1(1)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 32 Rule 1(2)
- Children Act Cap 59 s.3
- Contracts Act Cap 284 s.11(1)(a)
- Constitution of Uganda
Cases cited (2)
- Nash v Inman [1908] 2 KB 1
- Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 0008 Of 2016 in the Matter Of An Application By Meshak Adriko (The Biological Father Of The Minor) And In The Matter Of Adriko Reuben (A Minor)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.