Wakilii

Citizen Alert Foundation (CAF) Limited and 4 Others v attorney General and 3 Others (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 135 of 2021)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 17 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to amend notice of motion and file further affidavits in judicial review proceedings challenging appointment of Deputy Chief Justice
Decision
Application dismissed; 2nd respondent struck off as party to main cause

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 dismissed the application to amend the notice of motion and file further affidavits. The proposed substitution of Parliamentary Commission with Parliament of Uganda was unnecessary as the Attorney General already represented government interests and Parliament of Uganda lacks corporate personality to sue or be sued. The application to file further affidavits was premised on information sought after filing the main application and would merely rebut respondents' replies rather than introduce genuinely new matters. The 2nd respondent (Parliamentary Commission) was struck off as a party with costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed; 2nd respondent struck off as party to main cause

Facts

The applicants filed a judicial review application on 19 November 2020 challenging the nomination and appointment of the 4th respondent as Deputy Chief Justice of Uganda. Subsequently, they sought to amend their notice of motion and file further affidavits, claiming material facts were unavailable at the time of filing. They sought to substitute the Parliamentary Commission with Parliament of Uganda as a party, arguing the Parliamentary Commission was wrongly joined. The applicants had requested information from the Judicial Service Commission and Clerk to Parliament on 10 November 2020 but filed their main application nine days later without waiting for responses. The respondents opposed the amendments, arguing they would waste time and delay proceedings, particularly since the Attorney General already represented government interests.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants should be allowed to amend the notice of motion and file further affidavits in the main judicial review application.
  2. Whether the Parliamentary Commission should be struck out and substituted with Parliament of Uganda as a party to the suit.
  3. Whether the proposed amendments are necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties.
  4. Whether allowing the amendments would cause injustice to the respondents or delay the proceedings.

Orders

  • Application to amend notice of motion dismissed with costs to the respondents.
  • Application to file further affidavits dismissed with costs to the respondents.
  • The 2nd respondent (Parliamentary Commission) struck off as a party to the main cause with costs.
  • Applicants to file submissions by 16th April 2021.
  • Respondents to file submissions by 30th April 2021.
  • Applicants to file rejoinder if any by 7th May 2021.
  • Matter to come up for mention on 14th May 2021 at 9am.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Notice of Motion — Principles Governing Amendment
Courts have wide discretion to allow amendment of pleadings at any stage of proceedings, but such discretion must be exercised judicially. The main considerations are whether the amendment is necessary for determining the real question in controversy and whether it can be allowed without injustice to the other side.
Civil Procedure — Parties — Substitution — Parliamentary Commission versus Parliament of Uganda
Parliament of Uganda lacks corporate personality and cannot sue or be sued in its own name. The Parliamentary Commission cannot defend Parliament beyond its statutory functions. The Attorney General under Articles 119 and 250 of the Constitution has responsibility for defending Parliament as an organ of government in civil proceedings.
Judicial Review — Procedure — Further Affidavits — Rejoinder Evidence Not Permitted
There is no rejoining in evidence under judicial review proceedings. Once a party presents their case, they may only seek leave to file a supplementary affidavit to support their case, not to rebut what respondents have asserted in reply. An amendment merely intended to regurgitate the same question and lead further evidence should be disallowed.
Judicial Review — Limitation Period — Effect of Amendment on Time Limits
An amendment of pleading should not be allowed if the effect is to deprive a party of a right acquired by virtue of the limitation period. In judicial review proceedings with strict time limits, amendments that affect the limitation period or delay determination must be carefully scrutinised.
Judicial Review — Time for Disposal — Ninety-Day Rule
Under rule 7B of the Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules 2019, an application for judicial review shall be disposed of within ninety days from the date of filing. Time is of the essence in judicial review applications and courts must be mindful when exercising discretion to allow amendments that will delay trial and determination.
Civil Procedure — Amendment — Good Faith — Avoiding Preliminary Objections
An application to amend that is not made in good faith will be refused. Where an amendment is sought as an ingenious way of avoiding a respondent's intended preliminary objection rather than to determine the real dispute between parties, it will be dismissed.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (2)

  • Parliamentary Commission v Twinobusingye Severino and AG (Constitutional Application No. 53 of 2011)
  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Martin Adala Obene [1990-1994] EA 88

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Citizen Alert Foundation (CAF) Limited and 4 Others v attorney General and 3 Others (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 135 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCD 17 (1 April 2021)
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.