Wakilii

Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Limited (Civil Appeal 9 of 1998)

Supreme Court · [1999] UGSC 26 · 1999 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Supreme Court from a Court of Appeal decision allowing an appeal and remitting the suit to the High Court for trial on merits
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal's order remitting the suit to the High Court for trial on merits was confirmed.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 Custodian Board appealed against the Court of Appeal's refusal to dismiss the suit against it and its condemnation in costs, arguing the respondent had no cause of action against it. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board was joined under Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules not because a cause of action existed against it, but because its presence was necessary to settle all questions in the suit; the Court of Appeal therefore had no need to dismiss the appeal against it. As the only successful party, the respondent was rightly awarded costs following the event, and the Board, having fully argued the merits, could not escape them.

Facts

Jaffer Brothers Ltd, a Ugandan company owned by persons of Asian origin, was the registered proprietor of Plot 9 Hill Lane, Kololo. After the 1972 expulsion of Asians, the Government took over the property and vested it in the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board under Decree No. 27 of 1973. In 1977 the Board purportedly sold the property; it later reverted to Government with the coming into force of the Expropriated Properties Act 1982. In 1993-1994 Jaffer Brothers obtained letters of repossession and sued Bagalaaliwo for vacant possession. On Bagalaaliwo's application, and with the consent of their counsel, the Custodian Board and the Attorney-General were joined as 2nd and 3rd defendants over Jaffer Brothers' objection. The High Court upheld preliminary objections (time bar, no locus standi, no cause of action) and dismissed the suit with costs to all three defendants. The Court of Appeal allowed Jaffer Brothers' appeal, remitted the suit for trial on merits, and ordered the respondents to pay costs. The Custodian Board alone appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  1. Whether a defendant joined under Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, on the ground that its presence is necessary to settle all questions in the suit, must be dismissed from the proceedings where no cause of action is shown against it.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to dismiss the appeal as against the appellant Custodian Board.
  3. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in condemning the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
  4. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the trial court's dismissal of the suit and consequential orders.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Orders of the Court of Appeal confirmed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent in the Supreme Court and in the courts below.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Order 1 rule 10(2) — Necessary Party Without a Cause of Action
A person may be joined as a defendant under Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules not because there is a cause of action against him, but because his presence is necessary to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit.
Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Criteria for Necessary Party Under Order 1 rule 10(2)
A person qualifies for joinder as a necessary party where either the orders sought in the suit would legally affect his interests and joinder avoids a multiplicity of suits, or, on a defendant's application, where the defendant cannot effectually set up his desired defence unless that person is joined.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Costs Follow the Event
Costs normally follow the event; the only successful party on an appeal is entitled to costs, to be paid by the unsuccessful parties who opposed the appeal.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Appellate Interference with Trial Court's Discretion
An appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's exercise of discretion as to costs unless the discretion was exercised unjudicially or on a wrong principle, or where the order is wrong and no reasons, or no good reasons, are given for it.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Award Against the Wishes of the Successful Party
A trial court errs in principle in awarding costs to defendants who were joined in the suit against the plaintiff's wishes, on the application of another defendant who undertook to bear their costs.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 1 rule 10(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 1 rule 13
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 48 rules 1 & 3
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 rule 11(a)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 29
  • Civil Procedure Act s.27(1) (Cap. 65)
  • Expropriated Properties Act No. 9 of 1982
  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board Decree No. 27 of 1973

Cases cited (18)

  • Auto Garage v Motokov (No. 3) (1971) EA 514
  • Cottar v Attorney General for Kenya (1938) 5 EACA 18
  • Mera Farmers Co-operative Union v Abdul Aziz Suluman (No. 1) (1966) EA 436
  • Dollfus Mieg et Compagnie SA v Bank of England (1951) 1 Ch 33
  • Montgomery v Foy, Morgan and Co (1895) 2 QB 321
  • Norbury, Natzi & Co Ltd v Griffiths (1918) 2 KB 369
  • Scherer v Counting Instruments Ltd (1986) 2 All ER 529
  • Santana Fernandes v Kara Arjan & Sons (1961) EA 693
  • Horwell v London General Omnibus Co Ltd (1877) 2 Ex D 365
  • Iron & Steel Wares Ltd v CW Martyr Co (1956) 23 EACA 175
  • Hamilton v Seal (1904) 2 KB 262
  • Amon v Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd (1956) 1 All ER 273
  • JB Kohli v Bachulal Popatlal (1947) EA 219
  • Kiska Ltd v Augelias (1969) EA 6
  • Schanker Par Mayer and Ors v. Trustees of the Rahimtulla Laljii Hirji Charitable Trust (1955) XXII EACA 18, at p. 20
  • Nirmal Singh v Ram Singh (1961) EA 168
  • Makerere Properties Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1996)
  • Victoria Tea Estate Ltd v James Bemba and Another (Civil Appeal No. 49 of 1993)
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.