Wakilii

New Uganda Securing Limited v Securikor Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 74 of 2010)

High Court · [2010] UGHC 250 · 2010 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application to strike out pleadings arising from High Court Civil Suit No. 747 of 2003
Decision
Application dismissed; Applicant granted leave to appeal; underlying suit stayed pending appeal

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 High Court dismissed an application to strike out pleadings challenging the plaintiff's corporate existence and capacity to sue. The court held that Securikor (U) Limited was duly incorporated under the Companies Act and possessed corporate personality with capacity to sue. A change of name does not affect a company's legal status or obligations. The plaint disclosed a cause of action for trespass and mesne profits. Facts admitted during scheduling constitute binding admissions under section 57 of the Evidence Act and cannot be re-opened absent good cause. The suit was neither frivolous nor vexatious.

Outcome

Application dismissed; Applicant granted leave to appeal; underlying suit stayed pending appeal

Facts

The Respondent filed Civil Suit No. 747 of 2003 claiming ownership of land comprised in LRV 411 Folio 14 Plot 54 Sixth Street, Industrial Area and seeking a declaration of trespass, recovery of land, eviction of the Applicant, mesne profits and costs. The Applicant vacated the suit property in April 2005 before the suit was disposed of. In November 2010, the Applicant brought an application to strike out the pleadings, contending that the Respondent was non-existent and not a legal entity, that the plaint disclosed no cause of action, and that the suit was frivolous and vexatious. The Respondent countered with evidence that it was incorporated in 1965 and had undergone several name changes, the latest being in February 2002. The Registrar of Companies initially wrote a letter in July 2009 stating the company could not be found on the register, but in November 2010 certified the company's change of name and annual returns. During a scheduling conference in October 2004, both parties had signed a memorandum admitting the Respondent's legal status.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent/Plaintiff is a legal entity with capacity to sue.
  2. Whether the pleadings in the plaint disclose a cause of action.
  3. Whether the suit is frivolous and vexatious.
  4. Whether the Respondent's affidavit in reply is defective.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.
  • Applicant granted leave to appeal.
  • Appeal in Civil Suit No. 747 of 2003 stayed pending disposal of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Company Law — Corporate Personality — Effect of Change of Name — Section 19(5) Companies Act
A change of name by a company does not affect its legal status or any right or obligation of the company.
Company Law — Corporate Personality — Registration and Incorporation — Section 15 Companies Act
On registration and incorporation under the Companies Act, a company becomes a body corporate capable of exercising all the functions of an incorporated company, with power to hold land, having perpetual succession and a common seal.
Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Test — Disclosure in Pleadings
A cause of action is disclosed where the plaint shows that the plaintiff enjoys a right, that the right has been violated, and that the defendant is liable. The test is whether the facts pleaded, assumed to be true, entitle the plaintiff to the relief claimed.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out Pleadings — Standard — Court Must Be Satisfied Case Is Unmaintainable and Unarguable
Before striking out pleadings, the court must be satisfied that the case presented is unmaintainable and unarguable. The determination is made on the assumption that the facts alleged in the plaint are true.
Civil Procedure — Admissions — Scheduling Conference — Effect of Agreed Facts — Section 57 Evidence Act
Facts agreed upon by parties during a scheduling conference or in a written memorandum signed by both parties constitute admissions and need not be proved again. A court has discretion under section 57 of the Evidence Act to require facts to be proved otherwise than by admission, but should only exercise such discretion for good reason.
Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Survival — Effect of Partial Relief — Claim for Mesne Profits
Where a defendant vacates premises after a suit for trespass is filed but before judgment, the cause of action does not cease to exist. The issue of trespass during the period of occupation and the claim for mesne profits remain live issues requiring determination by the court.
Civil Procedure — Affidavit Evidence — Affidavit by Advocate — Order 19 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Rules
An affidavit deponed to by an advocate employed by a party in the capacity of company secretary, based on the advocate's own knowledge and disclosing the source of information for matters learned from others, does not offend Order 19 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (11)

  • Cooke v Gill (1873) LR 8 CP 107
  • Uganda Aluminium Ltd v Restuta Twinomugisha (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2000)
  • Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Auto Garage v Motokov [1971] EA 314
  • The Management Committee Bright Corp & others v New Vision Printing Publishing Corp & others [2003] UGHC 13
  • Kangave v Attorney General [1972] ULR 90
  • Jeraj Shariff Co. v Chotai Pandy Store [1960] EA 374
  • Kayondo v Attorney General [1988-90] HCB 129
  • Board of Governors of Kawempe Muslim Secondary School and Another v Hussein Kasekende (Miscellaneous Application No. 637 of 2006)
  • Aslund v Attorney General [2001-2005] HCB Vol. 3 104
  • In the matter of Kikoma Saw Millers Co. Ltd [1972] HCB 52

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

New Uganda Securing Limited v Securikor Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 74 of 2010) [2010] UGHC 250 (13 December 2010)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.