Wakilii

Brooks v Singh and Others (C.C. 234-32.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1932] EACA 38 · 1932 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for directions under Order I Rule 18 (Third Party Procedure) after consent judgment entered between plaintiff and defendants
Decision
Application for directions allowed to proceed; third party's objection dismissed

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 has power to entertain an application for directions under Order I Rule 18 (Third Party Procedure) even after judgment by consent has been entered between the plaintiff and the defendants who initiated the third party proceedings. The absence of provisions equivalent to English Order XVIA does not preclude such applications post-judgment, particularly where the third party has entered an appearance and the question of indemnity between defendants and third party remains to be determined.

Outcome

Application for directions allowed to proceed; third party's objection dismissed

Facts

The plaintiff brought an action against the first and second defendants in respect of a charge. The defendants sought an indemnity from a third party (Brown & Barratt, Ltd.) and obtained leave to issue a third party notice on 13 September. The third party entered an appearance. On 3 October, in the absence of the third party, judgment by consent was entered in favour of the plaintiff against the first and second defendants, with provision for redemption and taking of accounts. On 18 October, the defendants applied for directions under Order I Rule 18. The third party objected that no order could be made since judgment had already been given between the plaintiff and defendants.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has power to hear an application for directions under Order I Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance after judgment has been entered by consent of the defendants at whose instance the third party proceedings were commenced.

Orders

  • Objection disallowed.
  • Costs of the objection to be the defendants' in any event.

Rules and key headnotes

Third Party Procedure — Application for Directions After Consent Judgment
The Court has jurisdiction to hear an application for directions under Order I Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance (Third Party Procedure) even after judgment has been entered by consent between the plaintiff and the defendants who initiated the third party proceedings.
Third Party Procedure — Status of Third Party
Under the Kenya Rules, in the absence of provisions corresponding to English Order XVIA Rule 3, a third party is not a defendant to the action and therefore instructions that a defence should be delivered are of no effect.
Third Party Procedure — Determination of Liability After Main Action Concluded
Where judgment has been entered between plaintiff and defendants, the Court retains power to determine questions of liability and indemnity between the defendants and the third party, provided the Court is satisfied there is a proper case to be tried and gives necessary directions as to the manner of trial.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Civil Procedure Ordinance Order I Rule 18

Cases cited (3)

  • Rick v Darreif (1884) 28 Sol Jo 513
  • Caister v Chapman (1884) WN 31
  • Gloucester Banking Co Ltd v Phillips (Creagh, third party) (1884) 12 QBD 533

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Brooks v Singh and Others (C.C. 234-32.) [1932] EACA 38 (1 January 1932)
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.