Lift Up Jesus Global Ministries v Asociatia Misiunea and Others (Civil Suit No. 15 of 2019)
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 High Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit challenging its removal from membership of the 7th defendant company. The court held that the plaintiff was a member of the 7th defendant under its Articles of Association, and therefore had locus and a cause of action. However, the removal was conducted in accordance with the company's constitution at a properly convened meeting where both members were represented. The court found no grounds to impeach the removal on grounds of illegality, procedural impropriety, or denial of natural justice, as the meeting had quorum and followed the company's procedures.
Outcome
Suit dismissed with no order as to costs
Facts
The plaintiff, a Ugandan NGO, partnered with the 1st defendant, a Romanian organisation, to establish the 7th defendant company (Hope for Uganda Ministries Ltd) to implement projects for the Batwa minority group in Kisoro district. The plaintiff and 1st defendant were the two members of the 7th defendant, with the plaintiff holding 4 seats and the 1st defendant holding 5 seats on the 9-member Executive Board. After the relationship soured, a meeting of the 7th defendant was held on 18 May 2019 at which the 1st defendant's representatives voted to remove the plaintiff's four board representatives from membership. The plaintiff challenged this removal as illegal and in breach of the 7th defendant's constitution, seeking reinstatement and a permanent injunction.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff has locus to institute the suit
- Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendants
- Whether the plaintiff was properly removed as a member of the 7th defendant
- What remedies are available to the parties
Orders
- Suit dismissed.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (12)
- Companies Act Cap 106 s.45
- Companies Act s.121(1)(a)
- Companies Act s.141
- Companies Act s.142
- Companies Act s.148(1)
- Companies Act s.169(1)(b)
- Companies Act s.169(2)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order VII Rule 1(e)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order VIII Rule 16
- Civil Procedure Rules Order XV Rule 5
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.27
- Registration of Documents Act
Cases cited (3)
- Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461
- Christopher Sales & Another v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 91 of 2011)
- Auto Garage v Motokov [1971] EA 515
Cases citing this judgment (5)
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.
- Nakaziba Mirabu Magoba and Others v Basale Perez and Others (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2024)
- Kintu John and Another v Namulondo Scovia and Others (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2023)
- Byamukama v Uganda National Roads Authority (HCT-00-CV-CS 15 of 2019)
- Tekereza & 2 Others v Kyaligonza & 2 Others (Civil Application 1114 of 2023)
- Bugaga Maanyi Multipurpose Co-operative Society LTD v Uganda National Roads Authority (Civil Miscellaneous Application 12 of 2024)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.