May Flower Investments Ltd v Nina Interiors Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 661 of 2018)
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
Held that a director signing acknowledgments of debt and payment undertakings represents the directing mind and will of the company and binds it, regardless of whether documents are on the other party's headed paper. An applicant seeking leave to appeal must show prima facie grounds meriting serious consideration. Application for leave dismissed where no arguable grounds were established.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent
Facts
The respondent supplied furniture worth UGX 565,630,321 to the applicant. After partial payment, UGX 544,016,312 remained outstanding. The respondent filed a summary suit for recovery. The applicant sought leave to appear and defend, which was dismissed by the court after finding multiple acknowledgments of debt by the applicant. The applicant's director, Aidah May Kwesiga, had written acknowledging the debt on 21 November 2016 and signed an undertaking to pay in installments by 10 May 2017. The applicant then applied for leave to appeal, arguing the undertaking was not binding because it was signed on the respondent's headed paper and in the director's personal capacity.
Issues
- Whether the applicant demonstrated prima facie grounds of appeal to merit leave to appeal.
- Whether the acknowledgment of debt signed by a director on the respondent's headed paper was binding on the applicant company.
- Whether the director signing the payment undertaking acted in her personal capacity or represented the company.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Cases cited (2)
- HL Bolton Co v TJ Graham and Sons [1956] 3 All ER 624
- Sango Bay Estates and Others v Dregner Bank AG [1971] EA 17
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.