Company Law

Soon Production Ltd v Soon Yeon Hong & Another (Misc. Appl. No.190 Of 2008) ((Misc. Appl. No.190 Of 2008)) [2009] UGHC 147 (8 August 2009);

Flynote: 

Search Summary: 

The applicant, a company registered with limited liability under the Companies Act, Cap.110, Laws of Uganda, filed Miscellaneous Application Number 190 of 2008 seeking a review and setting aside the orders as regards properties in the names of the applicant, made by this Court, in a Judgment in Divorce Cause Number 15 of 2008.

 

The two respondents to this application were wife, SOON YEON HONG KIM, and husband:  KIM DONG YUN, and in Divorce Cause No.15 of 2005, the wife sought against the husband, the dissolution of the marriage on grounds of adultery and cruelty, amongst others.

During the hearing, Counsel for the first respondent to the application has raised two preliminary objections to the application.

The first objection, was that, the application was barred in law as counsel for the applicant, did not have any or any valid instructions of either the board of directors or the general meeting of Soon Productions Ltd to bring this action.

The second objection, was that, the Judgment in Divorce Cause No.15 of 2005 dated 12.05.08 between the two (2) respondents and the signed agreement, between the same respondents dated the 30.04.08, that preceded the Judgment, being a judgment and an agreement between the two (2) sole shareholders and directors of the company, constitute a valid and enforceable agreement, as to distribution of the property in question, binding on the Respondents and on the Company; and to that effect, that  claim was Res Judicata.

 

Headnote and Holding: 

Court observed and held that the application for Review involved fundamental issues regarding the three parties to it:  the Company, the applicant, and then its two Shareholders/directors who at the same time happen to be husband and wife whose marriage is being dissolved under the Divorce Petition.  The issues involved in the application were thus fundamental to the individual lives of those concerned.  It was thus appropriate, in the considered view of Court, that all the issues for resolution, be fully argued out and Court resolves each and every one of them on its own merits.

Court held that this was not an appropriate case for shutting out the parties by way of preliminary objections.

 

It was thus ordered that the application for Review proceeds on a full hearing, the same to be determined on its own merits.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Company Law