Wakilii

Dabule v Golden Leaves (U) Limited and 2 Others (Civil Suit 215 of 2020)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 178 · 2024 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance summary suit for recovery of rent arrears
Decision
Suit dismissed; claim for rent arrears unproven; suit against 2nd defendant struck off as non-existent party

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

Held that the plaintiff failed to prove his claim for rent arrears due to material contradictions between his pleadings and evidence. Suit against the 2nd defendant struck off as she was a non-existent party. Directors of the 1st defendant not personally liable in absence of fraud or grounds to lift the corporate veil. Suit dismissed with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Suit dismissed; claim for rent arrears unproven; suit against 2nd defendant struck off as non-existent party

Facts

The plaintiff landlord sued three defendants for rent arrears of UGX 60,000,000 for the period May 2018 to April 2019 at monthly rent of UGX 5,000,000. The 1st defendant company had operated a restaurant at the plaintiff's premises since 2007. The 2nd and 3rd defendants were named as directors. The plaintiff claimed the defendants vacated without notice after failing to pay rent. The defendants filed a defence and counterclaim asserting they had handed over the restaurant and its goodwill to the plaintiff as a reward for their longstanding relationship before returning to China. Defendants did not lead evidence at trial and the court proceeded under Order 17 rule 4. The plaintiff's evidence included two receipts from August and September 2018.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the rent arrears claimed.
  2. Whether the directors of the 1st defendant can be personally liable for acts of the 1st defendant.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Suit against the 2nd defendant (Mrs. Zhang Nan) struck off.
  • Plaintiff's claim for rent arrears dismissed for failure to prove the case.
  • Directors (2nd and 3rd defendants) not personally liable for acts of the 1st defendant.
  • Suit dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Parties — Non-existent Party — Effect on Suit
A suit in the names of a non-existent plaintiff or defendant cannot be cured by amendment and the plaint ought to be rejected as the defendant does not exist as a real or legal person capable of suing or being sued. The name of a competent party to a suit must be the real name by which he is known in the case of a natural person and its corporate name in the case of a non-natural entity.
Evidence — Contradictions — Material vs Minor — Test for Rejection
Where witnesses of a party give inconsistent or contradictory evidence on material facts, their evidence on that point must be regarded as unreliable and rejected. Material contradictions are those which amount to a disparagement of other evidence adduced, making it unsafe for the court to rely on either. The test of materiality is whether the contradictory elements are essential to the determination of the case.
Evidence — Pleadings and Proof — Contradictions between Pleadings and Testimony
When the evidence of a witness in court is different from or contradictory to the facts pleaded such that they cannot be reconciled, such evidence should be rejected. The court will not consider evidence improbable simply because there are minor inconsistencies vis-a-vis the facts pleaded, but evidence materially at variance with the pleadings will be rejected.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Unchallenged Evidence — Standard of Credibility
A plaintiff is not entitled to judgment merely because the defendant abandoned its defence by failing to lead evidence. The court is bound to accept unchallenged, uncontroverted and unrebutted evidence of the plaintiff only if it is cogent and credible. Credible evidence means evidence worthy of belief, which must not only proceed from a credible source but must be credible in itself in the sense that it is natural, reasonable and probable in view of the entire circumstances.
Company Law — Corporate Veil — Lifting the Veil — Personal Liability of Directors
The alter ego doctrine is not invoked arbitrarily and the court will be slow to lift the corporate veil in the absence of cogent evidence pointing to its abuse or perversion. Directors are not personally liable for acts of the company unless fraud, wrongdoing or inequitable conduct amounting to bad faith is established. Under section 20 of the Companies Act, the court may lift the corporate veil where a company or its directors are involved in acts including tax evasion or fraud.
Contract Law — Form of Contract — Writing Requirement — Informal Evidence
The writing envisaged for contracts does not require a formal written contract. The requirement is satisfied by any signed writing that reasonably identifies the subject matter of the contract, is sufficient to indicate that a contract exists, and states with reasonable certainty the material terms of the contract. It can be a receipt or even an informal letter.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (10)

  • Musoke Kitenda v Roko Construction Ltd (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 1240 of 2020)
  • Roko Construction Ltd v Isa Male (Miscellaneous Application No. 37 of 2021)
  • The Trustees of Rubaga Miracle Centre v Mulangira Ssimbwa and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Applications No. 576 and 655 of 2006)
  • IDEA Uganda Limited v Okello Stephen and 2 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 316 of 2021)
  • Oryem David v Omory Phillip (High Court Civil Suit No. 100 of 2018)
  • Bintubizibu v Sekibamu (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2019)
  • Makinde v Akinwale (2000) 2 NWLR (pt 645) 435 at 450
  • Agbi v Audu Ogbeh (2006) 11 NWLR (pt 990) pg 65 at 116
  • Fatunbi v Olanloye (2004) 12 NWLR (pt 887) 229 at 247
  • Nipun Bhatia and Another v Boutique Shazim Ltd and 4 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 123 of 2023)

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.

Dabule v Golden Leaves (U) Limited and 2 Others (Civil Suit 215 of 2020) [2024] UGHCCD 178 (31 October 2024)
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.