Wakilii

Attorney General v Sabric Building and Decorating Contractors Limited (Misc. Appl. No. 299 of 2012)

High Court · [2014] UGHC 120 · 2014 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out plaint arising from High Court Civil Suit No. 173 of 2010
Decision
Plaint struck out; suit dismissed as a nullity due to the plaintiff's non-existence as a legal entity.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 High Court struck out the plaint on the ground that the named plaintiff, Sabric Building and Decorating Contractors Limited, was not incorporated in Uganda and therefore had no legal existence. The court held that a non-existent entity cannot sue or be sued, and that this defect was not a mere misnomer curable by amendment but a matter of substance rendering the suit a nullity. The court followed the principle established in Fort Hall Bakery P C Co v Fredrick Muigai Wangoe that unincorporated entities are incapable of maintaining an action.

Outcome

Plaint struck out; suit dismissed as a nullity due to the plaintiff's non-existence as a legal entity.

Facts

In 2007, a company allegedly doing business under the name Sabric International Limited entered into a contract with the Government of Uganda to rehabilitate a tank shed at Masaka UPDF barracks. The company completed the work in 2008 but was only partially paid. In 2009, the same entity contracted to rehabilitate UPDF barracks at Masaka but was ordered off site by Brigadier Sabiti before completion. In 2010, a suit was filed in the name of Sabric Building and Decorating Contractors Limited against the Attorney General for breach of contract. A search by the Uganda Registration Services Bureau established that Sabric Building and Decorating Contractors Limited was not registered or incorporated in Uganda. The Attorney General applied to strike out the plaint on this ground. The respondent argued that the correct plaintiff was Sabric International Limited and that the error was a misnomer caused by the addition of a business description on letterheads.

Issues

  1. Whether a suit brought by a non-existent or unincorporated entity can be maintained before the court.
  2. Whether the incorrect naming of the plaintiff in the plaint constitutes a mere misnomer curable by amendment or a fundamental defect rendering the suit a nullity.
  3. Whether a suit filed in the name of a non-existent entity discloses a cause of action.

Orders

  • The plaint in High Court Civil Suit No. 173 of 2010 is struck out as being bad in law and disclosing no cause of action.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Parties to Suit — Legal Capacity — Unincorporated Entity
A non-existent or unincorporated entity has no legal personality and cannot sue or be sued in its own name; any suit purportedly brought by such an entity is a nullity and must be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Misnomer — Distinction from Non-Existence
A misnomer involves the improper or imperfect naming of a party where the party has legal existence and no change of identity is involved; where the named party does not exist as a legal entity at all, this is not a misnomer but a matter of substance affecting the identity of the party and cannot be cured by amendment.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Limits
A suit filed in the name of a non-existent plaintiff cannot be saved by amendment under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as the error goes to the substance of the party's identity and legal capacity, not to matters of form.
Company Law — Corporate Personality — Registration
A company that is not registered or incorporated in Uganda does not exist as a body corporate and has no legal personality capable of instituting or defending proceedings in Ugandan courts.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (7)

  • Nsimbe Holdings Ltd v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2006)
  • Trustees of Rubaga Miracle Centre v Mulangira Ssimbwa (Misc. Appl. No. 576 of 2006)
  • Fort Hall Bakery P C Co v Fredrick Muigai Wangoe (1959) EA 474
  • Uganda Freight Forwarders Association & Anor v Attorney General & Anor (Constitutional Petition No. 22 of 2009)
  • Sagate Promoters Ltd & Anor v Al Madhi Osman T/A Camel (Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2002)
  • Davies v Elsby Brothers Ltd [1960] 3 All ER 672 (CA)
  • Reliable African Insurance Agencies v National Insurance Corporation [1979] HCB 59

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Attorney General v Sabric Building and Decorating Contractors Limited (Misc. Appl. No. 299 of 2012) [2014] UGHC 120 (7 February 2014)
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.