Wakilii

Inyatsi Construction Limited & Another v Plinth Consultancy Services Limited & Another (Miscellaneous Application 1189 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 188 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside an Administrative Interim Order issued in prior interlocutory proceedings
Decision
Administrative Interim Order set aside and discharged

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

Service of court process on a corporation must be effected on the secretary, director, or principal officer as defined by the Companies Act 2012, or at the registered office. Service on a clerical secretary or front desk officer does not constitute effective service. Where a foreign company has not established or disclosed its place of business in Uganda, and service is attempted on an unauthorised person, such service is ineffective. The Administrative Interim Order issued without proper service must be set aside.

Outcome

Administrative Interim Order set aside and discharged

Facts

The 1st Applicant, a foreign company incorporated in Eswatini and registered with URSB, challenged an Administrative Interim Order issued by the court. The 1st Respondent attempted service of the order and pleadings on 14 June 2024 at an office in Naguru, allegedly belonging to the 1st Applicant, where documents were received by a person identified as Mbabazi Dianah. The Applicants denied having an office in Naguru and denied knowledge of Mbabazi Dianah. URSB records indicated that Richard Mugenyi was the person authorised to accept service on behalf of the 1st Applicant. The 1st Respondent also sent documents via email to Derrick Shiba, a director of the 1st Applicant, on 18 June 2024. The Applicants argued that service was never effectively executed on them.

Issues

  1. Whether service of the Administrative Interim Order was effectively executed on the 1st Applicant within the meaning of Order 29 rule 2 and Order 50 rule 3A(6) and (7) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether service on a clerical secretary or front desk officer constitutes valid service on a corporation under Order 29 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • The Administrative Interim Order issued in 2024 vide Miscellaneous Application No. 0979 of 2024 is set aside and discharged.
  • Costs shall abide the outcome of the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process on Corporations — Requirements for Effective Service
Service of process on a corporation must be effected on the secretary, any director, or other principal officer of the corporation, or by leaving it or sending it by post addressed to the corporation at the registered office or place of business, as required by Order 29 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process on Corporations — Clerical Secretary or Front Desk Officer
Service of court process on a clerical secretary or front desk officer does not constitute effective service on a corporation within the meaning of Order 29 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as such persons are not directors, secretaries, or principal officers as defined by the Companies Act 2012.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Foreign Companies — Authorised Recipient
Where a foreign company registered with URSB has designated a specific person authorised to accept service on its behalf under Company Form 25, service must be effected on that authorised person or in accordance with Order 29 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules to be valid.
Civil Procedure — Interim Orders — Setting Aside for Defective Service
Where an Administrative Interim Order issued under Order 50 rule 3A of the Civil Procedure Rules was not served effectively within the three-day period required by sub-rule (6), the order must be set aside and discharged as the requirement for proof of effective service was not met.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (4)

  • Kyambogo University v The Heights Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 0954 of 2015)
  • Vision Fund Uganda Limited v Buwembo Monday Kasule (Civil Appeal No. 98 of 2017)
  • Spencon Services Limited v Onencan (Civil Appeal No. 0092 of 2016)
  • SM Ssebowa & Family Limited v Manna Harvestors International Limited (Civil Appeal No. 161 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Inyatsi Construction Limited & Another v Plinth Consultancy Services Limited & Another (Miscellaneous Application 1189 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 188 (4 July 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.