MM Sheik Dawood v VG Keshwala and Sons (Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2014)

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

An appeal cannot be maintained against a party that has been declared by the court to be a non-existent entity. Where the court had previously ruled that VG Keshwala and Sons was not a registered entity and declared the original suit a nullity, an appeal arising from taxation of costs in that suit must be brought against the individual upon whom costs were ordered (Ranmal Keshwala), not the non-existent entity. The appeal was struck out.

Outcome

Appeal struck out for being brought against a non-existent entity

Facts

The Appellant had appealed a taxation decision of the Assistant Registrar delivered on 30 October 2014, arising from HCCS No. 43 of 2010. In a prior ruling dated 23 May 2014, the court had declared VG Keshwala and Sons to be a non-registered, non-existent entity incapable of suing or being sued, and declared the suit a nullity. The court ordered costs against Ranmal Keshwala personally. Following taxation, the Appellant filed an appeal naming VG Keshwala and Sons as respondent. The Respondent raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was incompetent because it was brought against a party already declared non-existent. The Appellant argued that the order on costs was clear, taxation had proceeded in the same names without objection, and the appeal was merely a continuation of existing proceedings.

Issues

1. Whether an appeal filed against a party that had been declared a non-existent entity by court is competent and maintainable.

Orders

• Appeal struck out.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Cases cited (5)

• The Trustees of Rubaga Miracle Centre v Mulangira Ssimbwa (HCMA No. 576 of 2006)
• Mulangira Ssimbwa v Board of Trustees, Miracle Centre and Pastor Robert Kayanja (HCMA No. 655 of 2005)
• Babubhai Dhanji Pathak v Zainab Mrekwe [1964] EA 24
• Fort Hall Bakery Supply Co Ltd v Fredrick Muigai Wangoe [1959] EA 474
• Banque Internationale De Commerce De Pertograd v Goukassaow [1923] 2 KB 682

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.

• Esomu Ebalu v Orit (Civil Appeal 35 of 2022)
• Esomu Ebalu v Orit (Civil Appeal 35 of 2022)
• Kivumbi v Kalemba (Civil Appeal 11 of 2018)
• Abiro and Another v Eweru (Civil Appeal 50 of 2022)
• Abiro and Another v Eweru (Civil Appeal 50 of 2022)

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