Wakilii

Abimanyire T/a Abiman De- Hammer and Associates v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application 104 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 179 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to be added as respondent in a separate application seeking review of certificate of costs arising from execution proceedings
Decision
Applicant added as respondent in related application

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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

Held that an applicant who is the beneficiary of costs awarded in a taxed certificate has demonstrated necessity to be added as a respondent in an application seeking to review that certificate. The applicant's interest would be directly affected by any order made, and denying joinder would create multiplicity of proceedings if the applicant later sought to challenge any orders affecting him.

Outcome

Applicant added as respondent in related application

Facts

Eulogio Mulindwa Musoke successfully sued the Attorney General in Civil Suit No. 08 of 2011 for damages arising from UPDF entry onto Nyaruzigati ranch. The parties entered a consent on execution for UGX 4,609,121,000 principal sum and UGX 60,682,300 costs. The bailiff (present applicant) filed a bill of costs which was taxed and allowed at UGX 157,926,000. The Attorney General filed Miscellaneous Application No. 099 of 2022 seeking to review the court's decision to award a certificate of costs against government on grounds that no costs for execution were awarded by court. The applicant, as beneficiary of the challenged costs certificate, applied to be added as a party to the review application.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has demonstrated necessity to be added as a party to Miscellaneous Application No. 099 of 2022

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Applicant added as a respondent in Miscellaneous Application No. 099 of 2022.
  • Respondent ordered to amend pleadings in Miscellaneous Application No. 099 of 2022 within seven days.
  • Applicant to file any replies seven days after amended pleadings.
  • Costs of this application to abide by the outcome of Miscellaneous Application No. 099 of 2022.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Addition of Necessary Party
A person whose legal interest would be directly affected by orders sought in an application has demonstrated necessity to be joined as a party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, particularly where that person is the beneficiary of costs whose validity is being challenged.
Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Avoidance of Multiplicity
Courts should grant joinder applications where denying joinder would necessitate separate proceedings by the applicant to challenge orders affecting his interests, as this would proliferate multiplicity of proceedings which courts are enjoined to curtail.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (2)

  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd [1999] I.E.A 55
  • Gokaldas Laximidas Tanna v Store Rose Muyinza (H.C.C.S No. 7076 of 1987)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Abimanyire T_a Abiman De- Hammer and Associates v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application 104 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 179 (31 January 2023)
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.