Augustine Kagutuya Atwijukye v Isingiro District Local Government Council and Others [2026] UGHC 800

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.

Holding

An application for leave to sue in a representative capacity on behalf of customary owners of land was dismissed. Order 1 rule 8(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules (as amended by S.I 33 of 2019) requires an applicant to show that all represented persons have an actual and existing interest in the subject matter, that they authorised the applicant in writing, and that the application is brought with a proposed plaint listing the represented persons. Although the supporting affidavit referred to an attached plaint, no plaint was on the court record or uploaded on ECCMIS. The court held the proposed plaint is necessary to assess the represented persons' actual and existing interest, and the applicant had therefore not satisfied the rule.

Outcome

Application for a representative order dismissed for failure to attach a proposed plaint

Facts

The applicant brought an ex parte chamber summons seeking leave to sue in a representative capacity on his own behalf and on behalf of several other persons said to be customary owners of land at Kyabishaho, Kanyerere and Kigarama in Isingiro Town Council, Isingiro District. The intended suit was against Isingiro District Local Government Council and eleven other respondents, the common grievance alleged being trespass onto the land. The application was supported by the applicant's affidavit, which asserted that the represented persons had the same actual and existing interest in the subject matter, that they had authorised the applicant in writing, and that a proposed plaint listing the persons to be represented accompanied the application. Counsel submitted that a representative action would allow several parties to obtain justice in one action rather than by separate suits, and undertook to publish any order granted in a local newspaper of wide circulation. On perusing the court file, the judge found that although paragraph 7 of the supporting affidavit referred to an attached plaint, no plaint was in fact on the court record or uploaded on ECCMIS.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions in Order 1 rule 8(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules for the grant of an order permitting a representative suit.
2. Whether an application for a representative order can succeed where no proposed plaint is attached to the application.

Orders

• The application is dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Judicature Act Cap 16 s.37
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 1 rule 8
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 1 rule 22
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 1 rule 8(3)(c)
• Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules S.I 33 of 2019 rule 2

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