Wakilii

Inspectorate of Government & Anor V Blessed Constructors Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2009)

Court of Appeal · [2009] UGCA 46 · 2009 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a ruling of the High Court (Commercial Division) overruling a preliminary objection and addressing joinder of a party
Decision
Appeal dismissed; Civil Suit No. 1026 of 2004 held properly instituted to proceed against the second appellant for breach of contract

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It held the trial judge erred in joining the Inspectorate of Government both as an amicus curiae and as a defendant: an amicus is invited by the court and must be independent, while the Inspectorate, being a non-party to the building contract and against whom no relief was claimed, could not be joined as a defendant under Order 1 rule 3. However, the substantive suit for breach of contract against Jinja District Administration was properly instituted as an ordinary suit, not judicial review, since the respondent sought no prerogative orders. The statutory immunity provisions protect individuals, not the local government body, which can be sued. The respondent had no cause of action against the Inspectorate.

Facts

The respondent, Blessed Constructors Limited, was awarded a tender by Jinja District Administration (second appellant) to construct schools. The respondent began work using its own funds while the contract was being formalised. The Inspectorate of Government (first appellant) investigated the tender award and recommended that the respondent should not be paid for work done. The respondent sued the second appellant for payment of the sums expended. The Inspectorate then applied to be joined as a defendant and was added by the trial judge as a defendant coming in as a friend of court, after which it filed a written statement of defence. At the hearing the Inspectorate raised a preliminary objection that the matter should have proceeded by judicial review rather than an ordinary suit. The trial judge overruled the objection and the appellants appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the first appellant was properly joined to the suit as an amicus curiae or as a defendant.
  2. Whether Civil Suit No. 1026 of 2004 was properly before the court despite the Inspectorate of Government's investigations and recommendations.
  3. Whether the respondent was required to proceed by way of judicial review rather than an ordinary suit.
  4. Whether the suit was barred by the statutory immunity provisions protecting the Inspectorate of Government and persons acting for local governments.
  5. Whether the respondent had a cause of action against the first appellant.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amicus Curiae — Independence and Court Invitation
An amicus curiae is invited by the court of its own volition, not joined on the application of a party, and must be an independent person without proprietary interest in the case; a party with a clashing interest cannot be admitted as amicus curiae.
Civil Procedure — Joinder of Defendants — Order 1 rule 3 CPR
A person may only be joined as a defendant where a right to relief in respect of the same act or transaction is alleged against them; a party against whom the plaintiff claims no relief and who is not privy to the contract in issue cannot properly be joined as a defendant.
Contract Law — Privity of Contract — Non-Party Joinder
A person who is not privy to a contract cannot be joined as a party to a suit founded on that contract, as only the parties to the contract may sue and be sued upon it.
Judicial Review — When Appropriate — Distinction from Ordinary Suit
Judicial review is appropriate only where a party seeks a prerogative order such as mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, injunction or declaration; where a claimant seeks ordinary relief for breach of contract and does not challenge an administrative decision, an ordinary suit, not judicial review, is the proper procedure.
Administrative Law — Statutory Immunity — Scope of Protection
The statutory immunity under section 22 of the Inspectorate of Government Act and section 173 of the Local Governments Act protects individual officers acting in good faith and does not bar suits against the Government entity or local government, which as a body corporate may sue and be sued.

Legislation cited (13)

  • Civil Procedure Rules (S.I. 71-1) Order 1 rule 3
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 42
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 225
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 227
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 230(2)
  • Judicature Act s.38 (as amended by the Judicature (Amendment) Act 2002)
  • Inspectorate of Government Act 2002 s.8(1)
  • Inspectorate of Government Act 2002 s.9
  • Inspectorate of Government Act 2002 s.10
  • Inspectorate of Government Act 2002 s.14(5)(c)
  • Inspectorate of Government Act 2002 s.22
  • Local Governments Act (Cap. 243) s.6
  • Local Governments Act (Cap. 243) s.173

Cases cited (3)

  • Inspector General of Government v Kikonda Butema Farm Ltd and AG (Constitutional Application No. 13 of 2006)
  • Attorney General v Silver Spring Hotel Ltd & Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1989)
  • Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1914] All ER 333
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.