THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
H.C.C.S659 OF 1995
NILE SAFARIS LTD::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
WADE ADAMS CONSTRUCTION LTD:::::::::::::::::DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. MUKANZA
R U L ING:-
Whenthe application to set aside the exparte order for attachment before judgment came for hearing pursuant to 36 rule 1 and order 9 r 24 of the CPR and section 101 CPA Mr. Muhwezi the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff raised a preliminary objection. After referring to the affidavit by one Edward Bamwite the learned counsel submitted that the application and affidavit lacked legal capacity to commence legal proceedings and as such the application was a nullity. Article 80 to Table A of the Companies Act Laws of Uganda vests the power of the company in the Board of Directors which normally gives power to litigate by way of the company boards regulation.
The applicant is a limited liability company. He had made research with company registry and found no board company’s resolution to proceed with those proceedings and unless the said resolution was filed just recently within two days the evidence which should be placed before the court then the application would have been made without authority the result of which would nullify the application together with the affidavit.
The learned counsel further submitted that the deponent of the affidavit in support of the application Anand Prasad is a financial controller of the company which is purely an administrative post as admitted in the affidavit. He is neither a managing director nor company secretary. His affidavit therefore could not give any legal capacity in absence ofthe company’s resolution. The application was incompetent and should be struck out.
Mr. Matovu the learned counsel representingthe applicant submitted that his learned friend wanted to delay the disposal of the application. At the end he will seek for an order that the respondent files security for frivolous applications. Before a court could decide on a preliminary point of law it looks on the face of the pleadings. The application for preliminary objection is premature and misconceived. I was referred to Article 80 Table A of the Company’s Acts. He had not looked at it but was citing the old rule in