Wakilii

Damanico Properties Ltd v Damani and 2 Others (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2021)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 13 · 2021 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory ruling dismissing preliminary objections in underlying company cause proceedings
Decision
Leave to appeal granted and underlying proceedings stayed pending appeal

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

Leave to appeal granted where applicant demonstrated arguable points of law requiring serious judicial consideration. Court found arguable whether a party added to proceedings by court order can later challenge the propriety of the suit against them, and whether lack of locus standi under specific statutory provisions can be cured by general remedial powers under Judicature Act s.33. Proceedings in underlying company cause stayed pending appeal.

Outcome

Leave to appeal granted and underlying proceedings stayed pending appeal

Facts

Damanico Properties Ltd was added as 2nd Respondent to Company Cause No. 03 of 2015 by court order. The company filed Miscellaneous Application No. 558 of 2020 seeking dismissal of the company cause on preliminary points: that the amended petition was incompetent; that the petitioners (Irene, Paraus and Krisma Damani) lacked locus standi to file a petition under Companies Act ss.248 and 249 as they were not members of Damanico Properties Ltd; and that the petition was barred by estoppel and res judicata. On 29 December 2020, the trial judge dismissed the application with costs, finding that although the petitioners were not members of the company and could not sustain an action under ss.248-249, the pleadings disclosed serious matters requiring investigation and the court could exercise jurisdiction under Judicature Act s.33. Damanico Properties Ltd then sought leave to appeal that ruling.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has sufficient grounds for the grant of leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Applicant is granted leave to appeal against the decision of the Learned Trial Judge in Miscellaneous Application No. 558 of 2020 (arising from Company Cause No. 03 of 2015).
  • All the proceedings in and/or arising from Company Cause No. 03 of 2015 are stayed pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal.
  • The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the intended appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Test for Grant of Leave
Leave to appeal from an order in civil proceedings will normally be granted where prima facie it appears that there are grounds of appeal which merit serious judicial consideration, but where the order was made in the exercise of judicial discretion, a rather stronger case must be made out.
Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Challenge to Propriety of Suit After Joinder
Where a party is added to proceedings by court order, whether that party is barred by res judicata from subsequently challenging the propriety of the suit against them, or whether such challenge can only be raised after joinder when the party obtains locus standi, is an arguable point of law meriting serious judicial consideration.
Company Law — Minority Shareholder Petitions — Locus Standi
Whether lack of locus standi to bring a petition under Companies Act ss.248 and 249 (which protect minority shareholders who are members) can be cured by the court's general remedial powers under Judicature Act s.33 is an arguable point of law requiring serious judicial consideration.
Statutory Interpretation — Judicature Act s.33 — Scope of General Remedial Powers
For Judicature Act s.33 to apply, the court must be exercising jurisdiction granted by law and the claim must be properly brought before the court; whether s.33 can confer jurisdiction where a party lacks locus standi under the specific statutory provision invoked is an arguable question.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (6)

  • Sango Bay Estate Ltd & Others v Dresdner Bank A.G [1971] EALR 17
  • Musa Sbeity & Another v Akello Joan (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 249 of 2018)
  • Ayebazibwe v Barclays Bank Uganda Ltd & 3 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 292 of 2014)
  • Sanyu Lwanga Musoke v Sam Galiwango [1997] V KALR 47
  • Charles Harry Twagira v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2003)
  • Yedida Padde v Hamidadi Ali (High Court Civil Appeal No. 0045 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Damanico Properties Ltd v Damani and 2 Others (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCD 13 (26 March 2021)
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.