Kabale Housing Estates Tenants Association v Kabale Municipal Local Council [2013] UGSC 19

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.

Holding

The court upheld the respondent's preliminary objection that counsel Rwaganika was not duly instructed to act for the applicant company. An advocate represents a company on the basis of a company resolution; where instructions have been withdrawn, counsel cannot claim authority and his actions are a nullity. The applicant company had passed a special resolution withdrawing Rwaganika's instructions and appointing Mr. Mwebesa, and was unwilling to ratify Rwaganika's acts. The application for interim stay of execution, having been filed by counsel without instructions, was therefore incompetent and was dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.

Outcome

Application for interim stay of execution dismissed as incompetent

Facts

The applicant, a company limited by guarantee formed by residents of government houses known as Kabale Housing Estate, sought to benefit under the Government Divestiture Policy when the respondent council sold the houses. The respondent sold the houses on the open market without giving priority to the applicant's members. The applicant, through Mr. Rwaganika, obtained prerogative orders of mandamus and prohibition in the High Court at Mbarara, which the trial judge later reviewed, prompting an appeal. A dispute arose over Rwaganika's authority: a special resolution filed with the Registrar of Companies on 17 May 2013 withdrew his instructions and appointed Mr. Mwebesa, and the applicant had reported Rwaganika to the Law Council for acting without instructions. Rwaganika nonetheless filed this application for an interim stay of execution of Court of Appeal orders in Civil Reference No. 94 of 2013. The respondent raised a preliminary objection challenging his authority to act.

Issues

1. Whether Mr. Rwaganika was duly instructed to represent the applicant company in the application.
2. Whether an application filed by counsel acting without a company resolution is competent.

Orders

• The preliminary objection is upheld.
• The application for interim stay of execution is dismissed.
• Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.2(2)
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.6(2)(b)
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.43
• Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations S.I. 267-2 reg.2(1)
• Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations S.I. 267-2 reg.3(1)

Cases cited (5)

• City African Textile Shop (U) Ltd v Jan Mohamed Ltd (HCMA No. 0437 of 2002)
• Buikwe Coffee Ltd (1962) EA 327
• Danish Mercantile Co Ltd v Beaumont & Anor [1951] Ch 680
• Gray v Lewis (1873) 8 Ch App 1035
• United Assurance Co Ltd v Attorney General [1995] KALR 308

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.

• Oyam District Local Government v Aluku (Revision Application 43 of 2021)

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