Wakilii

Akampurira Alex Bosco and Others v Attorney General and Summit Projekt Limited (Civil Suit 504 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 185 · 2026 Preliminary Objections Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objections in a first instance civil suit for breach of contract and payment of arrears
Decision
Preliminary objections dismissed; matter to proceed to joint scheduling and mediation

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

The High Court overruled both preliminary objections raised by the defendants. The court held that the representative suit was competently instituted because the plaintiffs followed Order 1 Rule 8(3)(c) by filing a proposed plaint with their application, and the representative order was granted before summons were served. The court further held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action against both defendants: against the 1st Defendant based on alleged implied contractual undertakings made during site meetings and selective payments to workers, and against the 2nd Defendant based on admitted engagement of the plaintiffs and non-payment for work performed.

Outcome

Preliminary objections dismissed; matter to proceed to joint scheduling and mediation

Facts

The Ministry of Water and Environment entered into a contract with Summit Projekt Limited (2nd Defendant) for construction of solar-powered water supply systems in Kiryadongo District. Summit Projekt engaged the plaintiffs as staff and service providers through Local Purchase Orders and appointment letters, with payments to be made monthly or on an admeasured basis. Summit Projekt defaulted on payment obligations. The Ministry issued a Notice of Intention to terminate the contract on 19 April 2024, citing non-payment of staff wages. During a site meeting on 2 May 2024, it was allegedly resolved that the Ministry would make deductions from Summit Projekt's Interim Payment Certificate to pay the claimants directly. The contract was terminated on 16 September 2024. A final evaluation of works valued at UGX 3,412,183,092 was approved on 23 November 2024. The Ministry selectively paid some workers on 20 December 2024 but refused to settle remaining claims. The plaintiffs filed suit on 25 April 2025 seeking UGX 999,593,000 in special damages and other relief.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaint is proper before this court?
  2. Whether the Plaintiff has a cause of action against the Defendants?

Orders

  • The Preliminary Objection that the Plaint discloses no cause of action against the 1st and 2nd Defendants is overruled.
  • The suit is found to be competently before this Court.
  • The parties are directed to proceed with joint scheduling and mediation as per the Court's rules.

Rules and key headnotes

Representative Actions — Order 1 Rule 8 — Timing of Representative Order
Where a plaintiff files a proposed plaint together with an application for a representative order under Order 1 Rule 8(3)(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the representative order is granted before summons are served on the defendants, the suit is competently instituted and not a nullity, notwithstanding that the plaint was registered before the order was granted.
Representative Actions — Notice Requirements — Personal Service vs Public Advertisement
Where the persons to be represented in a representative suit are limited in number, readily identifiable, and capable of being served individually, public advertisement under Order 1 Rule 8(1) is unnecessary if personal service proves entirely efficacious.
Preliminary Objections — Cause of Action — Implied Contracts
Under Order 6 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where a plaintiff alleges that a contract or relationship is to be implied from a series of letters, conversations, or circumstances, the question of whether such implied contract exists is a matter of evidence to be tested at trial and cannot be determined on a preliminary objection.
Privity of Contract — Third Party Rights — Section 65 Contracts Act
For the purposes of determining a preliminary objection on the ground of no cause of action, where a plaintiff alleges that a principal made specific undertakings to pay third parties and selectively paid some of those parties, the question of whether those undertakings created a new contractual nexus or an agency relationship giving rise to third-party rights under Section 65 of the Contracts Act is a triable issue that cannot be struck out at the preliminary stage.
Preliminary Objections — Test for Cause of Action
A preliminary objection on the ground of no cause of action is only sustainable if, even assuming all facts pleaded in the plaint are true, the plaintiff would still not be entitled to any relief. Arguments regarding lack of supporting documentation or the merits of the claim are defences to be determined at trial, not grounds for striking out the plaint.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (20)

  • Kanyima v Rugoora Per Pre Kivumbi Bavista Katwerana Society [1982] HCB 33
  • Henry Kamoga and 5 Others v Bank of Uganda (Civil Suit No. 62 of 2009)
  • Auto Garage v Motokov No. 3 [1971] 1 EA
  • Khauka Tom and 5 Others v Mbabazi Samuel and 8 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2022)
  • Tarlogan Singh v Jaspal Phaguda and Others (1997-2001) UCLR 408
  • Nabukenya Sarah and Others v Sulaiman Mukasa and Sons Ltd (Miscellaneous Applications No. 193 and 231 of 2022)
  • Departed Asian Property Custodian Vs Jaffaebrother Ltd I.E.A.A 55
  • Uganda Telecom Limited v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017)
  • Paul Kanyima v Rugoora [1982] HCB 33
  • Henry B. Kamoga and 5 Others v Bank of Uganda (Civil Suit No. 62 of 2009)
  • Hon. Justice Prof. Dr. G. W. Kanyeihamba and 320 Others v Amos Nzeyi and 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 361 of 2010)
  • Ibrahim Buwembo and Others v UTODA Ltd (Civil Suit No. 664 of 2003)
  • Nsereko and Others v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2002)
  • Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd AC 847
  • NSSF and Another v Alcon International (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2009)
  • Kapeka Coffee Works Ltd v NPART (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
  • Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Cooke vs Gull LR 8E.P 116
  • Read vs Brown 22 QBD P.31
  • Kebirungi v Road Trainers Ltd and 2 Others [2008] HCB 72

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Akampurira Alex Bosco and Others v Attorney General and Summit Projekt Limited (Civil Suit 504 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 185 (31 January 2026)
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.