Equity Bank Uganda Limited v HD Resources Limited & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 1833 of 2022)
Observed later treatment
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 court held that the corporate veil of the 1st Respondent company could be lifted at the execution stage where the company had disappeared after obtaining credit, could not be traced at its registered address, had no known assets for attachment, and failed to honour the court decree. The court found that the company's conduct was opposed to justice and the interests of those doing business with it, warranting piercing of the corporate veil to allow the judgment creditor to execute against the 2nd and 3rd Respondents as directors.
Outcome
Corporate veil lifted; 2nd and 3rd Respondents made personally liable for 1st Respondent's debt; execution to proceed against them
Facts
Equity Bank Uganda Limited obtained default judgment against HD Resources Limited in Civil Suit No. 915 of 2020 for UGX 135,170,000 plus interest and costs. A decree was extracted on 27 March 2023. When the bank attempted to execute the decree via EMA-0224-2022, it could not locate the company at its registered address in Ntinda, Kampala, nor could it trace any assets of the company. The company had changed from its known address and the new address was unknown. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents, who were directors/shareholders of the 1st Respondent company, could not be traced. The bank then filed this application seeking to lift the corporate veil and make the directors personally liable.
Issues
- Whether the corporate veil of the 1st Respondent should be lifted by court and execution proceed against the 2nd and 3rd Respondents.
- Whether the corporate veil can be lifted at execution stage.
Orders
- Application allowed.
- The corporate veil of the 1st Respondent be lifted.
- The 2nd and 3rd Respondents be made personally liable for the liability of the 1st Respondent.
- Execution to proceed against the 2nd and 3rd Respondents.
- Costs of the application awarded to the Applicant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (6)
- Companies Act 2012 s.20
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules O.38 r.5(d)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.2
- Evidence Act s.103
Cases cited (9)
- Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd [1897] AC 22
- Delhi Development Authority v Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd [1996] 4 SCC 623
- Salim Jamal & 2 Others v Uganda Oxygen Ltd & 2 Others [1997] 1 KALR 38
- Gifford Motor Company v Horne [1933] Ch 935
- Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
- Beatrice Odongo & Noah Ochota v Tamp Engineering Consultants Limited (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2020)
- Guning v Naguru Tripati Ltd & 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 232 of 2017)
- Corporate Insurance Company Limited v Savemax Insurance Brokers Ltd [2002] 1 EA 41
- W. E. Kiwalabye v Uganda Commercial Bank and Another (1994) IV KALR 8
Cases citing this judgment (1)
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.