Wakilii

Premier Distillers Ltd v Lazio Italian Restaurant [2026] UGHCLD 261

High Court · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out / reject the plaint in a civil suit under O.6 rr.28-30 and O.7 r.11 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Decision
Application allowed; plaint in HCCS No. 671 of 2025 struck off and suit dismissed with costs to the defendant

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

On an application to reject the plaint, the court held that the plaintiff, Lazio Italian Restaurant, is a non-existent legal entity with no locus standi to sue: the only certificate of incorporation produced was for the distinct entity 'Lazio Italian Restaurant Limited', and no anomaly was rectified. The court further held the plaint disclosed no cause of action, because the tenancy agreements relied on were not executed between the plaintiff and defendant; one agreement named a business-name tenant (Zebib Simon Tecle t/a Lazio Restaurant Café and Lounge), and the other was an unsigned blank draft. The application was allowed, the plaint struck off, and the suit dismissed with costs to the defendant.

Outcome

Application allowed; plaint in HCCS No. 671 of 2025 struck off and suit dismissed with costs to the defendant

Facts

The applicant, Premier Distillers Ltd, applied to strike out the plaint in HCCS No. 671 of 2025 filed by Lazio Italian Restaurant, contending the respondent was a non-existent legal entity lacking capacity to sue and that the plaint disclosed no cause of action. The respondent's suit claimed breach of contract and unlawful termination of a tenancy/lease over premises comprised in LRV 2755 Folio 6 Plot 47A Upper Kololo Terrace, and sought general damages. The respondent relied on a tenancy agreement said to have been executed by Zebib Simon Tecle, its then director, and on a purported four-year renewal dated 1 August 2025. The applicant denied ever leasing to the respondent, asserted the earlier tenant was Lazo Co. Ltd, and stated the agreement relied on was unsigned by it and a forgery. The certificate of incorporation produced in reply was for 'Lazio Italian Restaurant Limited'. The first tenancy agreement named Zebib Simon Tecle t/a Lazio Restaurant Café and Lounge as tenant; the second was an unsigned blank draft.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff, Lazio Italian Restaurant, has locus standi to file HCCS No. 671 of 2025.
  2. Whether the plaint in HCCS No. 671 of 2025 discloses a cause of action against the applicant/defendant.

Orders

  • The plaint in HCCS No. 671 of 2025 is struck off and the suit dismissed under O.6 rr.28, 29 and 30 and O.7 r.11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, with costs.
  • The plaintiff shall pay costs in HCCS No. 671 of 2025 to the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Company Law — Legal Personality — Capacity to Sue of an Unincorporated or Differently-Named Entity
An entity that is not shown to be incorporated has no legal personality and no locus standi to sue or be sued; a certificate of incorporation in the name of a differently-named company (e.g. 'X Limited') does not establish the legal existence of an entity sued or suing under a bare business name (e.g. 'X').
Civil Procedure — Locus Standi — Right to Appear and Be Heard
Locus standi means the right to appear and be heard in a proceeding; a party without legal existence lacks locus and cannot maintain a suit regardless of the merits of any underlying claim.
Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Contract Not Executed Between the Parties
A plaint discloses no cause of action for breach of contract where the agreements relied upon were not executed between the plaintiff and the defendant; a claimant must show it enjoyed a right, the right was violated by the defendant, and it suffered damage.
Civil Procedure — Rejection of Plaint — Scope of Inquiry Under O.7 r.11
In determining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action, the court looks only at the plaint and the annexures thereto, and may reject the plaint where, on that material, no cause of action against the defendant is disclosed.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (8)

  • The Trustees of Rubaga Miracle Centre v Mulangira Ssimbwa (Miscellaneous Application No. 576 of 2006)
  • Charles Harry Twagira and Anor v DFCU Bank (Civil Suit No. 188 of 2018)
  • Dima Dominic Poro v Inyani & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 0017 of 2016)
  • Namayega v Etot & 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 939 of 2019)
  • Njau & Others v City Council of Nairobi [1976-1985] EA 397
  • Milton Obote Foundation Ltd v Uganda People's Congress (Miscellaneous Application No. 121 of 2019)
  • Auto Garage & Ors v Motokov (No. 3) [1971] EA 514
  • Kebirungi v Road Trainers Ltd & 2 Ors [2008] HCB 72

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Premier Distillers Ltd v Lazio Italian Restaurant [2026] UGHCLD 261 (30 June 2026)
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.