Priamit Enterprises Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 10 of 2001)

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

The Supreme Court dismissed a second appeal, upholding rejection of the appellant's plaint for disclosing no cause of action. UTC, the company indebted to the appellant for tyres, was a separately incorporated limited liability company; the Government, though sole shareholder, was not liable for its debts. Section 23 of the PERD Statute conferred only a discretion to use sale proceeds in the Divestiture Account to pay a public enterprise's creditors, and only where the enterprise had been sold and the proceeds banked. The plaint pleaded no facts that UTC had been sold or proceeds deposited, so s.23 was not engaged. No cause of action was disclosed and the appeal failed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; rejection of the plaint for non-disclosure of a cause of action affirmed.

Facts

The appellant supplied tyres to Uganda Transport Co. (1975) Ltd (UTC), a limited liability company wholly owned by the Government, which owed it Shs.8,812,500. UTC defaulted despite repeated demands. The Government, as sole shareholder, advertised in the Uganda Gazette (General Notice No. 85 of 1994) and the New Vision its intention to liquidate UTC and appointed joint liquidators, who invited creditors to lodge their claims. The appellant sued the Attorney General in the High Court, contending the Government was liable for UTC's debt — initially because it was the sole shareholder, and later, by amendment, under section 23 of the PERD Statute to pay from the Divestiture Account. UTC had not been sold and no proceeds had been placed in the Divestiture Account. At the hearing the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the plaint disclosed no cause of action.

Issues

1. Whether the appellant's plaint disclosed a cause of action against the respondent.
2. Whether the Government, as sole shareholder, could be liable for the debts of UTC, a separately incorporated limited liability company.
3. Whether section 23 of the PERD Statute rendered the Government liable to pay the appellant from the Divestiture Account.
4. Whether the preliminary objection to reject the plaint under O.7 r.11 was appropriate, or whether a full trial on the merits was required given the mix of fact and law.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• Costs of the appeal and of the courts below awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Civil Procedure Rules O.7 r.11(a)
• Public Enterprises Reform and Divestiture Statute 1993 s.23
• Public Enterprises Reform and Divestiture Statute 1993 s.2
• Public Enterprises Reform and Divestiture Statute 1993 s.34
• Public Enterprises Reform and Divestiture (Amendment) Act 2000
• Companies Act (Cap 85) s.33
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.81(1)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.93(1)

Cases cited (6)

• Wycliff Kiggundu v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1992)
• Nurdin Ali Dewji and Others v Meghji and Others (1953) 20 EACA 132
• Auto Garage and Others v Motokov (1971) EA 514
• Canada Sugar Refining Company Ltd v The Queen (1898) AC (HL)
• Mugenyi & Co. Advocates v Attorney General
• Everett v Ribbonds and Another (1952) 2 QB 198

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.

• Steven Kiiza Kizimula v Luwalira Matayo and Others (Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2025)
• Lutaaya and Others v DFCU Bank Uganda Limited and Others (Civil Suit 616 of 2020)
• Unidron Ltd & Ors v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 4 of 2007)
• Specioza Kalungi & 61 Ors v Attorney General & Anor (HCCS 63 of 2008)
• Maria Mpinga and Others v Sensalire and Others (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2001 and No. 118 of 2003; Civil Appeal No. 118 of 2003)

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