Wakilii

Centre for Law and Peace Uganda and Peace Uganda and 3 Others v Bank of Uganda and Another (Civil Suit 370 of 2017)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 157 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objections to propriety of suit on multiple grounds
Decision
Suit struck out on preliminary objections

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 held that the suit was improperly constituted on multiple grounds. The plaint failed to articulate fundamental rights allegedly infringed and the first plaintiff lacked sufficient interest as a public interest litigant. The remaining plaintiffs sought remedies for contractual breaches rather than constitutional violations, rendering article 50 inapplicable. The proceedings constituted a disguised representative suit lacking the required representative order. The plaint failed to properly plead breach of statutory duty against the first defendant and was bad for misjoinder, improperly combining public law constitutional claims with private law contractual claims against different defendants. The suit was struck out with costs to both defendants.

Outcome

Suit struck out on preliminary objections

Facts

The first plaintiff, a civil society organisation, together with the second to fourth plaintiffs (customers of defunct Crane Bank Limited), sued Bank of Uganda and DFCU Bank jointly and severally. They sought declarations, refunds, and cancellation of a Bank of Uganda directive that transferred customer accounts from Crane Bank Limited to DFCU Bank without consent. The second to fourth plaintiffs contended the transfer involved unauthorised disclosure of confidential information. They also alleged Bank of Uganda failed its supervisory duty by permitting Crane Bank to operate below minimum standards. DFCU Bank was accused of unlawfully deducting money from the second plaintiff's account based on a credit arrangement with Crane Bank. The first plaintiff joined as a public spirited organisation seeking to enforce rights of depositors affected by Bank of Uganda's actions. The defendants raised multiple preliminary objections to the propriety of the suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit is properly filed under article 50 of The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995.
  2. Whether the proceedings are a disguised representative suit and thus incompetent for lack of a representative order.
  3. Whether the plaintiffs have locus standi for seeking the reliefs sought.
  4. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action against the 1st defendant.
  5. Whether the plaint is bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action.

Orders

  • Suit struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the defendants.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Enforcement of Fundamental Rights — Article 50 — Scope and Application — Distinction from Contractual Claims
Article 50 of the Constitution is a public law tool designed for enforcement of fundamental and other rights guaranteed under the Constitution and was never intended for claims seeking the enforcement of contractual rights. Where plaintiffs seek remedies for alleged violation of contractual obligations rather than fundamental rights, the suit is not properly filed under article 50.
Constitutional Law — Public Interest Litigation — Locus Standi — Sufficient Interest
In public interest litigation, the plaintiff must have sufficient interest in the matter in dispute. A public spirited organisation cannot, in a representative capacity, be a person aggrieved when its own interests are not in issue, and where it seeks to pursue the cause of persons who are sophisticated enough to operate bank accounts and thus able to seek redress on their own. The plaint must articulate facts disclosing fundamental rights sought to be enforced and demonstrate that the litigant has a genuine interest in the subject matter.
Civil Procedure — Representative Suits — Distinction from Public Interest Litigation
The distinction between representative suits and public interest litigation is that the former is in relation to numerous parties who must have the same interest while the latter relates to a large number of persons who due to various constraints such as illiteracy, extreme poverty, marginalisation or ostracisation by society, cannot sue or defend their rights. Public interest litigation relaxes the principle of locus standi, whereas in representative suits the procedural requirements of locus standi are not relaxed and the plaintiff must obtain consent of persons sought to be represented. Where plaintiffs seek to enforce rights of other bank customers without complying with Order 1 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the suit is a disguised representative suit incompetent for lack of a representative order.
Administrative Law — Breach of Statutory Duty — Elements of the Cause of Action
For a claim in tort of breach of statutory duty, the plaint must show that there is a statutory duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, there was a breach of that duty by the defendant, there was damage caused to the plaintiff, and that damage must have been caused by the breach of the statutory duty. Liability arises where the statutory obligation was imposed for the benefit or protection of a particular class of individuals, and where the statute creates a public right and an individual member of the public suffers particular damage. Careless performance of a statutory duty does not give rise to a cause of action unless there exists a right of action for breach of statutory duty simpliciter or a common law duty of care in negligence.
Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties and Causes of Action — Public Law and Private Law Claims
While public and private law remedies can and should operate in conjunction as complements to each other in the sphere of enforcement of rights, to join a claim for private rights arising from breach of contract with a constitutional claim would result in joining parties without a common interest in the subject matter. A suit cannot be maintained against two or more persons who have no common interest in the subject of the litigation. Joining a defendant against whom an alleged breach of contract is made to a suit intended to enforce the public duties of a regulator constitutes a misjoinder of causes of action.
Banking & Finance — Bank Regulation — Qualified Immunity — Financial Institutions Act
Section 124 of the Financial Institutions Act 2004, which previously provided qualified immunity to the Central Bank, was declared unconstitutional in Peter Ssajjabi v. Attorney General (2021) as giving unjustified and arbitrary protection contrary to article 21(1) of the Constitution. Under the doctrine of stare decisis and the principle that judicial decisions ordinarily apply retroactively to ongoing proceedings, the declaration of unconstitutionality applies to all undecided cases subsequently litigated regardless of whether the relevant events occurred before or after the new precedent was announced.

Legislation cited (21)

Cases cited (24)

  • S.P. Gupta v. President of India and others, AIR 1982 SC 149
  • People's Union For Democratic Rights and others v. Union Of India and others (1982) 3 SCC 235
  • State Of Tamil Nadu v. Union Of India, AIR 1983 1 SC 130
  • Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India and others, 1981 AIR 298; 1981 SCR (2) 185; AIR 1981 SC 298
  • Aboneka Michael and another v. Attorney General (H.C. Misc. Cause No. 386 of 2018)
  • Muwanga Kivumbi v. Attorney General (S. C. Constitutional Appeal No. 06 of 2011)
  • Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, [2012] 2 SCR 524
  • Attorney General of British Columbia v. Council of Canadians with Disabilities, 2020 BCCA 241
  • The Environmental Action Network v. Attorney General (H. C. Misc. Application No. 39 of 2001)
  • British American Tobacco v. The Environmental Action Network (H. C. Misc. Application No. 70 of 2002)
  • Attorney General v. Major General Tinyefuza (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1997)
  • Cooke v. Gull, LR 8E.P 116
  • Read v. Brown 22 QBD 31
  • Auto Garage and others v. Motokov (No.3) [1971] E.A 514
  • Kebirungi v. Road Trainers Ltd and two others [2008] HCB 72
  • Peter Ssajjabi and another v. Attorney General and another (Constitutional Petition No. 51 of 2013)
  • Cadder v. HM Advocate General for Scotland [2010] 1 WLR 2601
  • Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (1964)
  • Willow Wren Canal Carrying Co Ltd v. British Transport Commission [1956] 1 W.L.R. 213; [1956] 1 All E.R. 567
  • Phillips v. Britannia Hygienic Laundry [1923] 2 KB 832
  • Lonrho Ltd v. Shell Petroleum Co Ltd [1980] 1 WLR 627
  • Barclays Bank DCO v. C. D Patel and others [1959] 1 EA 214
  • Yowana Kahere v. Lunyo Estates Ltd [1959] 1 EA 319
  • Anufrijeva v. London Borough of Southwark [2004] 2 WLR 603

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Centre for Law and Peace Uganda and Peace Uganda and 3 Others v Bank of Uganda and Another (Civil Suit 370 of 2017) [2022] UGCommC 157 (16 May 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.