Web3. Geoffrey Gatete & Anor. William Kyobe SCCA No, 7/2005. 4. Re. Pritchard (1963] ALLER 873. 8.4 Time within which to serve Summons and effect of service of expired summons (Time within which to serve, who to serve, consequences of lapse of time, remedy if time for service lapses). 1. Fredrick James Junju & Anor versus Madhivani Group Ltd … WebThe case of Geoffrey Gatete and Angela Maria Nakigonya versus William Kyobe Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005 is instructive. The judgment of the court was delivered by Mulenga JSC with concurrence of the rest of the panel of Supreme Court Judges.
2 kyobe ssenyange vs naks ltd 1980 hcb 31 3 sekyaya - Course Hero
WebOn 11th February 2014, the Court of Appeal eventually heard Civil Appeal No. 087 of 2010 ex parte. and delivered its Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 087 of 2010 on 26 th February 2014. The Court set. aside the decision of the High Court refusing to set aside the Judgment of the Kiboga Grade 1. Magistrate. WebSep 21, 2007 · This appeal originates from a summary suit instituted in the High Court by William Kyobe, the above named respondent, in which he obtained a consent judgment against GMT Group, a business firm comprising three partners, namely … greenworks customer service phone number
Kazibwe v Uganda Post Ltd (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.
Webnamely; Geoffrey Gatete & Another v William Kyobe SCCA No. 07 80 of 2005, Uganda Micro Enterprises Association Ltd & 2 Ors v The Micro Finance Support Centre Ltd, HCMA No. 125 of 2005, Rwabuganda Godfrey v Bitamisi Namuddu, CACA No. 23/ 2009, Kasule v Muhwezi [1992-1993] HCB 212, and Maria Odido v Barclays Bank of Uganda Ltd, HCMA … WebTomson Muhwezi HCCS No. 167 of 1990 reported in [1992-1993] HCB 212 and Geoffrey Gatete & Another v. William Kyobe, Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005 reported in [2007] HCB Vol. 1. 54. He then submitted that the issue of illegality has been pleaded in this application therefore it should be investigated and proved at the trial. WebO.30 r 7 provides that where a summons is served in the manner provided by rule 3 of this Order upon a person having the control or management of the partnership business, no appearance by him or her shall be necessary unless he or she is a partner of the firm sued. The case of Geoffrey Gatete and Angela Maria Nakigonya versus William Kyobe ... foam tack board