Nile House Limited and Another v Rock City Investments Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 1093 of 2016)
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 held that the affidavit sworn by an advocate in the firm representing the applicants was proper and not defective. On the substantive objection, the court found that the 2nd respondent (Public Warehousing Limited) had no privity of contract with the applicants and therefore no cause of action against them. Similarly, the 1st respondent had no cause of action against the 2nd applicant (Lee Sung Ho) as he was not a party to the contract. The application to strike out was allowed.
Outcome
Preliminary objection upheld; plaint to be struck out as regards 2nd respondent and 2nd applicant
Facts
On 23 April 2009, Nile House Limited (1st applicant) and Rock City Investments Limited (1st respondent) executed a contract for the supply of door frames, door shutters, kitchen, wardrobe and aluminium for a project in Juba. Rock City advanced US$112,500 by cheque drawn on Public Warehousing Limited (2nd respondent). Nile House alleged it delivered goods worth US$90,000 and that Rock City abandoned the site. Rock City brought suit for breach of contract against both Nile House Limited and Lee Sung Ho (2nd applicant, Managing Director of Nile House), claiming US$78,083.86 plus damages. The applicants filed a preliminary objection that the 2nd respondent had no cause of action against them and that the 1st respondent had no cause of action against the 2nd applicant.
Issues
- Whether the affidavit in support of Miscellaneous Application No. 1093 of 2016 is defective.
- Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action against the 2nd applicant.
- Whether the 2nd respondent has a cause of action against the applicants.
Orders
- The application is allowed.
- The 2nd respondent has no cause of action against the applicants.
- The 1st respondent has no cause of action against the 2nd applicant.
- Costs shall abide the cause.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 O.7 r.11(a)
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 O.15 r.2
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 O.52 rr.1 & 3
- Civil Procedure Rules O.19 r.3
- Civil Procedure Rules O.19 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules O.19 r.3(b)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.19 r.13
- Civil Procedure Rules O.3 r.1
- Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)
Cases cited (7)
- Auto Garage v Motokov (No.3) [1971] EA 514
- Zola v Ralli Bros Ltd [1969] EA 691
- Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] 1 EA 696
- Carolyne Turyatemba and 4 Others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 15 of 2006)
- Standard Chartered Bank Uganda Ltd v Mwesigwa (Miscellaneous Application No. 477 of 2012)
- Jeraf Shariff & Co. v Chotai Fancy Stores [1960] EA 374
- Joseph Mpamya v Attorney General [1966] II KALR 121
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.