M/S Mbarara Community Hospital Ltd v Karema (HCT-05-CV-MA-116-2014)
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 court granted an order under section 142 of the Companies Act 2012 allowing the majority shareholder holding 70% of shares to convene and constitute an extraordinary general meeting alone, where the other shareholders were either hostile or non-resident in Uganda, making it impractical to conduct company affairs through ordinary procedures.
Outcome
Application allowed; applicant authorized to convene and constitute extraordinary general meeting alone
Facts
Mbarara Community Hospital Ltd was incorporated on 11 June 2003 with five shareholders. Dr Nathan Karema held 70 shares, with the remaining shares distributed among four other shareholders. Only two shareholders, Dr Karema and Jane Karema Rukeera, currently resided in Uganda; the other three resided in the United Kingdom. Dr Karema alleged that Jane Karema Rukeera was hostile and that the non-resident shareholders' absence made it difficult to lawfully execute company affairs. He had mortgaged his personal property to ensure the smooth running of the company. He brought an ex parte application seeking an order to convene an extraordinary general meeting where he would conduct proceedings alone.
Issues
- Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements under section 142 of the Companies Act 2012 for an order that he convene and constitute an extraordinary general meeting of the company alone.
Orders
- Dr Nathan Karema should convene and constitute an extraordinary general meeting of the company pursuant to section 142 of the Companies Act 2012.
- The costs of this application are to be met by the company.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
- Companies Act 2012 s.142
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules O.38 r.6(h)
Cases cited (1)
- BDC Online and Lynn Kategaya (HCT-CS-18 of 2005)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.