Centenary Rural Devt Bank Ltd v Wakabi (Miscellaneous Application No. 423 of 2020)
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
Application dismissed. An advocate may swear an affidavit in support of a client's case if the averments are within the advocate's own knowledge. A party cannot be joined as a defendant unless the plaintiff has a right to relief against them arising from the same transaction, or separate suits would raise common questions of law or fact. A defendant bank facing breach of contract claims by a property purchaser cannot compel joinder of the original debtor and mortgagor as defendants where the plaintiff has no cause of action against them and the bank has alternative remedies through third party proceedings.
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Facts
Centenary Rural Development Bank extended a loan to Zziwa Livingstone secured by a mortgage over property registered to Matovu Timothy, who allegedly granted powers of attorney and signed as surety. Upon default, the bank sold the property with both parties' consent. Wakabi Martin purchased the property. Martin then sued the bank in Civil Suit No. 653 of 2019 for breach of contract, claiming the bank sold him land that was not subject to sale because it formed part of a forest reserve claimed by the National Forestry Authority. The bank sought to join the original debtor and mortgagor as defendants, arguing their presence was necessary to determine the lawfulness of the title and whether default entitled the bank to sell. The respondent opposed, contending the only question was whether the bank breached its agreement with him, which could be resolved without joining the others.
Issues
- Whether the Affidavit in Reply is defective and should be struck off.
- Whether Zziwa Livingstone (debtor) and Matovu Timothy (mortgagor) should be added as Defendants to Civil Suit No. 653 of 2019.
Orders
- The Applicant's preliminary objection to the Affidavit in Reply is dismissed.
- The application to add Zziwa Livingstone and Matovu Timothy as Defendants to Civil Suit No. 653 of 2019 is dismissed.
- Costs of this application awarded to the Respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 1 Rule 3
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 1 Rule 10(2)
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 1 Rule 14
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 3 Rule 1
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 19 Rule 2
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 19 Rule 2(1)
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 19 Rule 3(1)
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 50 Rule 1
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 50 Rule 3
Cases cited (5)
- Simon Tendo Kabenge Advocates v Mineral Access Systems (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 565 of 2011)
- Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
- Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1998)
- Samson Sempasa v P.K. Sengendo (Miscellaneous Application No. 577 of 2013)
- Winnie Okidi & 2 Others v FINA Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 90 of 2013)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.