[1999] UGHC 11

[1999] UGHC 11

The court found that the guarantee relied upon by the plaintiff was signed by persons not authorized under the defendant's Bye-Laws, which strictly require that only the General Manager jointly with the Chairman or Secretary may sign such documents. The presence of the company seal and letterhead did not cure the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1999] UGHC 11
Parties
Plaintiff: Hima Cement (U) Ltd; Defendant: Uganda Co-operative Insurance Ltd
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
High Court Civil Suit No. 619 of 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
suit struck out with costs to defendant
Legal Topics
Contract Guarantee, Authority of Company Agents, Bye Laws Interpretation, Cause of Action, Performance Guarantee Bond
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Contract Guarantee Authority of Company Agents Bye Laws Interpretation Cause of Action Performance Guarantee Bond

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hima Cement (U) Ltd

Plaintiff

Uganda Co-operative Insurance Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the guarantee issued by the defendant was valid and binding on the defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the persons who signed the guarantee had authority to bind the defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant based on the guarantee.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the guarantee relied upon by the plaintiff was signed by persons not authorized under the defendant's Bye-Laws, which strictly require that only the General Manager jointly with the Chairman or Secretary may sign such documents. The presence of the company seal and letterhead did not cure the lack of authority, and ostensible authority could not be pleaded where the authority was illegally assumed. The guarantee was found to be a word-for-word copy of a bank guarantee and not a valid insurance guarantee. As a result, the guarantee was declared illegal and void, and the plaintiff was held to have no cause of action against the defendant. The suit was struck out in its...

Court Disposition

suit struck out with costs to defendant

Orders

  • The suit is struck out in its entirety.
  • Costs are awarded to the defendant.