Kamurasi Charles v Accord Properties & Anor [2000] UGSC 11

Supreme Court · 2000 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Civil appeal from High Court order striking out plaint for abuse of process and ordering appellant's counsel to pay costs personally; heard ex parte

Decision

Appeal dismissed; High Court order striking out the second plaint stands

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 Supreme Court upheld the trial judge's finding that filing two plaints under the same suit number against different defendants, without amendment or leave, and the conduct of counsel in concealing this and securing an ex parte hearing, amounted to abuse of the process of the court; grounds challenging that finding failed. The Court accepted that an advocate should not be condemned to pay costs personally without an opportunity to be heard (a rule of natural justice), so that ground succeeded in principle. Nonetheless, given counsel's repeated abuse of process — extending to the manner in which the appeal itself was prosecuted ex parte — the appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Facts

Counsel for the appellant filed two plaints in the High Court, each naming different sets of defendants but both given the same suit number (Civil Suit No. 46 of 1990). The first named Serugooti Estates Ltd and Christopher Ssekisambu; the second, filed and served later without notice or leave to amend, named Accord Properties Ltd and Christopher Ssekisambu. The defendants entered appearance and filed a defence to the second plaint. Subsequent proceedings, including an amended plaint and an application later abandoned, were conducted as if only one plaint existed. The trial judge, on perusing the record, discovered the two plaints and counsel's silence about them. He struck out the second plaint for abuse of process and ordered counsel to pay costs personally. On appeal, counsel's conduct continued, including delayed substituted service publishing yet a third, incorrect set of respondents' names.

Issues

Whether the existence of two plaints filed under the same suit number against different sets of defendants, without amendment or leave, constituted an abuse of the process of the court.
Whether an advocate may be condemned to pay costs personally without first being given an opportunity to be heard.

Orders

Appeal dismissed.
Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondents.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Abuse of Process — Multiple Plaints Filed Under One Suit Number

Filing two plaints against different sets of defendants under the same suit number without amendment, leave, or payment of fees, and concealing their existence from the court, constitutes an abuse of the process of the court justifying the striking out of the offending plaint.

Civil Procedure — Costs Against Advocate Personally — Right to Be Heard

An advocate may not be condemned to pay costs personally for misconduct or abuse of process without first being given an opportunity to be heard and to show cause, that opportunity being a requirement of natural justice and fair procedure.

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Form of Grounds of Appeal

Grounds of appeal must be set forth concisely under distinct heads without argument or narrative as required by the rules of court; grounds drafted in breach of this requirement are objectionable.

Legislation cited (5)

Civil Procedure Act s.101
Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 rule 17(1)(a)
Civil Procedure Rules Order 75 rules 10 and 30
Rules of the Supreme Court rule 81(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court rule 1(3)

Cases cited (4)

B.E.A. Timber Co. v Inder Singh Gill (1959) EA 163
Abraham v Justin [1963] 2 All ER 402
J.B. Kohli and Others v Bachulal Popatlal (1964) EA 219
R v University of Cambridge (1723) 1 Str 557

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.