Nicholas Were v Ssewanyana and Another (Company Cause No. 44 of 2007)
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 dismissed the application for rectification of the company register. Unregistered share transfers lacking stamp duty cannot be relied upon to establish transfer of shares. The applicant failed to prove that shares had been validly transferred to him. The respondents remained shareholders and lawfully removed the applicant as director under the company's articles of association.
Outcome
Application dismissed — applicant remains removed from directorship; respondents remain as shareholders and directors of Goodman Agencies Limited
Facts
In 1993, Nicholas Were and his wife Evelyn Were incorporated Goodman Agencies Limited, holding 75% and 25% of shares respectively. In 1995, Were sold 25% of his shares to Sam Ssewanyana. The applicant claimed that in 2001 Ssewanyana transferred shares back to him, and in 2004 his wife transferred her shares to him, producing unsigned and unregistered transfer documents. Evelyn Were died on 18 April 2004. In 2006, the second respondent Karlson Ngolobe obtained letters of administration to his late mother's estate and claimed her shares. On 18 September 2006, directors controlling 75% of shares removed the applicant from his position as managing director and director, appointing Ssewanyana in his place. The applicant sought rectification of the company register, claiming the respondents were not shareholders and could not lawfully remove him.
Issues
- Whether the respondents were shareholders in Goodman Agencies Limited at the time of the application.
- Whether the applicant was lawfully removed from the directorship of Goodman Agencies Limited and whether the respondents were rightly appointed as directors.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Applicant to pay the respondents' costs of the application.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
Cases cited (2)
- Badrudin and Another v Pyarali [1975] EA
- Ssengendo v Attorney General [1972] EA 140
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.