Barazar & 4 Others v Mukhwana & 36 Others (Miscellaneous Application 267 of 2022)
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 dismissed an application to add parties as defendants in a land suit on the ground that the applicants, who purported to act as lawful attorneys, failed to attach powers of attorney to the notice of motion at the time of filing. The court held that Order 7 Rule 14(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules mandates that documents vesting a party with locus standi, including powers of attorney, must be presented when the plaint or application is filed. The failure to comply rendered the application incompetent.
Outcome
Application dismissed for non-compliance with Civil Procedure Rules
Facts
The applicants sought to be added as defendants in Civil Suit No. 0011 of 2017, claiming to be lawful attorneys of Sange Mama Barazar, the alleged owner of approximately 660 acres of land in Kween district. They contended that the land had been inherited from late Mangusho Kapsiker through his wife and daughter, Sange Mama Barazar, and that the 35th respondent, Mumya Paul, was wrongfully claiming ownership. The 35th respondent opposed the application, asserting ownership through customary inheritance from his grandfather. The 35th respondent raised a preliminary objection that the applicants had not attached powers of attorney to the application at the time of filing, as required by the Civil Procedure Rules.
Issues
- Whether the application was incompetent for failure to attach powers of attorney at the time of filing.
- Whether the application was incompetent for being filed against deceased respondents.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the 35th respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (8)
Cases cited (5)
- Paul Rawlins & 2 Others v Christ Alive Glorious Ministries International (Miscellaneous Application No. 311 of 2022)
- Mutebi Sula v Nam Chau Trading Co. Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 04 of 2020)
- Frakudin Vallibhai Kapasi & Another v Kampala District Land Board & Another (Civil Suit No. 570 of 2015)
- Unicofi Ltd v Interfreight Forwarders (Civil Suit No. 912 of 1996)
- Makula International v Cardinal Nsubuga Wamala [1992] HCB
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.