City Council of Kampala v Crested Crane Tours and Travel Limited (Civil Appeal 16 of 2004)

Court of Appeal · [2013] UGCA 2049 · 2013 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Civil appeal from a High Court judgment in Civil Suit No. 966 of 1999

Decision

Appeal dismissed with costs; High Court judgment in favour of the respondent upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

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, holding that the trial judge correctly found the appellant had been duly served with the statutory notice of intention to sue. Service upon the City Advocate, as a recognised agent of the Town Clerk, amounted to effective service under Regulation 26 of the Local Government Act. A copy of the notice annexed to the plaint, bearing the City Advocate's department stamp and signature, was prima facie evidence of service. Once the respondent produced this evidence, the evidential burden shifted to the appellant to prove non-service or forgery, which it failed to do — having neither specifically traversed the pleading nor challenged service in evidence or cross-examination.

Facts

The respondent sued the City Council of Kampala, a statutory local government body, in the High Court. As a precondition to suing such a body, the respondent was required to serve a statutory notice of intention to sue under the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, with the mode of service governed by Regulation 26 of the Third Schedule to the Local Government Act. The respondent issued a statutory notice dated 8 February 1999 and annexed a copy to the plaint (annexture 'F'), which bore a rubber stamp of the appellant's Legal Department, City Advocate's Office, dated 12 February 1999, together with a signature. The appellant's written statement of defence contained a bare denial of the relevant paragraph but did not specifically traverse it. At trial, neither party led evidence on the issue of service, and the appellant raised no preliminary objection and did not cross-examine on it, though both counsel addressed it in written submissions. The trial judge found service had been effected, and the appellant appealed.

Issues

Whether the learned trial judge erred when he found that the appellant was duly served with the statutory notice of intention to sue.
Whether service of the statutory notice upon the City Advocate constituted effective service upon the Town Clerk under Regulation 26 of the Local Government Act.

Orders

Appeal dismissed.
Costs awarded to the respondent in this court and in the court below.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Statutory Notice of Intention to Sue — Service on Local Government — Service on City Advocate as Agent of Town Clerk

Service of a statutory notice of intention to sue upon the City Advocate constitutes effective service upon the Town Clerk for the purposes of Regulation 26 of the Third Schedule to the Local Government Act, the City Advocate being a recognised agent of the Town Clerk responsible for the legal matters of the council.

Evidence — Burden of Proof — Prima Facie Evidence — Shifting of Evidential Onus

Where a party produces prima facie evidence of a fact, such as a copy of a statutory notice duly stamped and signed in acknowledgement of receipt, the evidential burden shifts to the opposing party to displace that evidence; failure to do so leaves the evidence unchallenged and sufficient to establish the fact.

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Specific Traverse — Effect of Bare Denial

A bare denial in a written statement of defence that does not specifically traverse a material averment in the plaint precludes the defendant from adducing evidence to contradict that averment, since rules of evidence do not permit a party to lead evidence on a matter not pleaded in defence.

Civil Procedure — Statutory Notice — Consequence of Non-Service — Competence of Suit

Failure to serve a statutory notice of intention to sue upon government, a local government, or a scheduled corporation before filing suit renders the entire suit incompetent.

Legislation cited (3)

Local Government Act Cap 243, Third Schedule, Regulation 26
Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act
Rules of the Court of Appeal r.86

Cases cited (7)

Michael Sansa and Others v Kampala City Council (HCCS No. 482 of 1999)
City Division Council of Rubaga v Jimmy Muyanja (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2002)
Kampala City Council Versus Nuliyati [1974] EA 400
Impact Process Ltd v City Council of Kampala (HCCS No. 929 of 1997)
Besigye Kizza v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta and Another (Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
James Mboijana v Caroline Mboijana (Civil Appeal No. 87 of 2002)
Stoney Vs Eastborne Rd Council (1927) I ch.367,397

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.