Wakilii

Balikuddembe and Another v Aurum Roses Limited and 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1795 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 98 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application to be added as defendants to an existing civil suit
Decision
Applicants added as defendants to the underlying civil suit with leave to file defence

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 court struck off the 3rd Respondent's affidavit in reply for being filed out of time without leave. The preliminary objection that the Applicants lacked locus standi was dismissed as it was not supported by evidence on record and did not raise a pure point of law. The court granted the application and ordered that the Applicants be added as defendants to the underlying civil suit with leave to file a written statement of defence within 15 days.

Outcome

Applicants added as defendants to the underlying civil suit with leave to file defence

Facts

The Applicants sought to be added as parties to an existing civil suit (HCT Civil Suit No. 518 of 2019). When the application was called for hearing, counsel for the Applicants raised a preliminary objection that the 3rd Respondent's affidavit in reply was filed out of time. The 3rd Respondent's counsel conceded this point. The 1st and 2nd Respondents also acknowledged that they had not filed their affidavits in reply within the stipulated time. The 3rd Respondent then raised a preliminary objection that the Applicants lacked locus standi, relying on submissions and a purported court ruling that was not properly on record. The Applicants contested this objection.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in reply filed by the 3rd Respondent should be struck off for being filed out of time.
  2. Whether the preliminary objection that the Applicants lack locus standi has merit.
  3. Whether the Applicants should be added as defendants to the underlying civil suit.

Orders

  • The affidavit in reply filed by the 3rd Respondent is struck off the record.
  • The preliminary objection raised by the 3rd Respondent is disallowed.
  • The Applicants are added as Defendants to High Court Civil Suit No. 518 of 2019.
  • The Applicants are allowed to file a written statement of defence to High Court Civil Suit No. 518 of 2019 within 15 days from the date of this Ruling.
  • Costs to be borne by the Applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits in Reply — Time Limits — Effect of Filing Out of Time
An affidavit in reply filed outside the time limits prescribed by the Civil Procedure Rules without leave of court is improperly before the court and must be struck off the record.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Requirements — Points of Law
A preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law and must be supported by evidence properly on record. Where the objection relies on facts contained in an affidavit that has been struck off, or on documents not properly exhibited, the objection cannot succeed.
Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Addition of Defendants — Discretion of Court
Under Order 1 rule 10(2) and (4) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court has discretion to add parties as defendants to an existing suit where the applicant demonstrates a need to be joined and the respondents fail to raise sufficient grounds to disallow the application.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.1 r.9
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.1 r.10(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.1 r.10(4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Stop and See Uganda Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 332 of 2010)
  • Patrick Senyondwa and Others v Lucy Nakitto (Miscellaneous Application No. 1103 of 2018)
  • Dima Dominic Property v Nyani Godfrey and Others (Court of Appeal No. 17 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Balikuddembe_and_Another_v_Aurum_Roses_Limited_and_5_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._1795_of_2021)_[2022]_UGHCLD_98_(1_April_2022)
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.