Bachwenkojo v Shengli Engineering Construction Co (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No 44 of 2022)
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
Court held that an attorney with a power of attorney authorising institution of suits has valid authority to sue on behalf of the donor. The court ordered the respondent foreign company to furnish security in the form of a bank guarantee of UGX 100,000,000 within 30 days to prevent the risk of a decree becoming infructuous, though the court rejected the applicant's request to attach performance guarantees held by a third party.
Outcome
Application partly allowed with respondent ordered to furnish security in reduced amount
Facts
The applicant and respondent had executed a lease agreement allowing the respondent (a Chinese construction company working on a road project) to extract rock materials from land jointly owned by the applicant. After the lease expired, the respondent allegedly continued extraction without authority, leading the applicant to file Civil Suit No. 05 of 2022 claiming mesne profits, declaratory orders, injunction and damages valued at UGX 100,000,000. The respondent contended it had a lease extension signed by the applicant. The applicant then brought this interlocutory application seeking to attach the respondent's performance guarantees with UNRA or alternatively for the respondent to furnish security of UGX 3,000,000,000, arguing the respondent was domiciled in China, was winding up operations in Uganda, had no known assets in Uganda, and that Uganda had no reciprocal enforcement treaty with China.
Issues
- Whether the applicant's attorney had authority to institute the suit.
- Whether the respondent should be ordered to furnish security for the applicant's claim.
Orders
- The respondent's objection to the applicant's attorney's authority was overruled.
- The respondent shall furnish security in the form of a bank guarantee issued by any commercial bank in Uganda in the sum of UGX 100,000,000 within 30 days from the date of this ruling.
- Costs of this application shall abide by the outcome of Civil Suit No. 05 of 2022.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
Cases cited (2)
- Makubuya Enock Willy T/A Pollaplast v Songdoh Firms Ltd & Anor (HCMA No. 312 of 2018)
- Custom & Excise Commissioner v Ancor Foods Ltd (1999) 1 WLR 1139
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.