Equity Bank Uganda Limited v HD Resources Limited and Others [2023] UGHC 554
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
The High Court lifted the corporate veil of the 1st Respondent company at the execution stage, holding that where a registered company disappears after taking credit, cannot be traced through its registered address, and has no known assets for attachment to satisfy a court decree, the corporate veil may be pierced to prevent flagrant injustice. The court found that lifting the veil was justified not only on grounds of fraud but also where the corporate personality is opposed to justice, convenience, and the interests of those doing business with the entity. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents were made personally liable for the judgment debt.
Outcome
Corporate veil lifted; 2nd and 3rd Respondents made personally liable for judgment debt of UGX 135,170,000
Facts
In November 2020, Equity Bank Uganda Limited filed Civil Suit No. 915 of 2020 against HD Resources Limited for recovery of UGX 135,170,000 being money had and received. The 1st Respondent could not be traced at its registered address and did not file a defence despite substituted service. Default judgment was entered on 27 March 2023 for the principal sum plus interest at 20% per annum and costs. When the Applicant sought to execute the decree, the 1st Respondent could not be located at its registered address at Ntinda, Kampala, and no assets could be traced. The Applicant then filed this application seeking to lift the corporate veil and make the 2nd and 3rd Respondents (directors/shareholders) personally liable. The Respondents were served through substituted service but did not appear; the matter proceeded ex parte.
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.
- Corporate veil of the 1st Respondent lifted.
- Execution to proceed against the 2nd and 3rd Respondents.
- Costs of the application awarded to the Applicant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
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] 11 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 Ochola v Tamp Engineering Consultants Limited (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2020)
- Guning v Naguru Tripati Ltd & 5 Ors (Misc Application No. 232 of 2017)
- Corporate Insurance Company Limited v Savemax Insurance Brokers Ltd [2002] I EA 41
- W. E. Kiwalabye v Uganda Commercial Bank and Another (1994) IV KALR 8
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.