Wakilii

Dilbagh Singh properties Ltd and Anor v John Seromba and 10 ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 2072 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 171 · 2022 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for joinder of parties and leave to amend pleadings in pending civil suit and miscellaneous application
Decision
Application partly allowed. 9th, 10th and 11th respondents joined as parties. Applicants granted leave to amend pleadings. Application dismissed as against 1st to 8th respondents for want of service.

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

Held that where a party's presence is necessary to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in a suit, that party may be joined. Application granted to add 9th, 10th and 11th respondents as defendants to the main suit and as respondents in the miscellaneous application. Application dismissed as against 1st to 8th respondents for want of service under Order 5 rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Application partly allowed. 9th, 10th and 11th respondents joined as parties. Applicants granted leave to amend pleadings. Application dismissed as against 1st to 8th respondents for want of service.

Facts

The applicants brought this application seeking to add the 9th, 10th and 11th respondents as defendants in Civil Suit No. 293 of 2016 and as respondents in Miscellaneous Application No. 284 of 2021. The 10th respondent is the registered proprietor of the suit land comprised in Block 244 plot 1676 Kisugu Kampala, having obtained it from the 9th respondent during the pendency of the main suit. The 10th respondent obtained a loan of UGX 1,247,261,336 from the 11th respondent on 23rd June 2020 using the suit property, and the 11th respondent registered a mortgage as an encumbrance on the suit land. The applicants contended that the orders sought in the suit would directly affect the interests of these respondents. The 1st to 8th respondents were never served with court process, while the 9th, 10th and 11th respondents were served but did not oppose the application.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants are necessary parties to High Court Civil Suit No. 454 of 2014 to warrant their addition as parties
  2. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • Application dismissed as against 1st to 8th respondents for want of service under Order 5 rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • The 9th, 10th and 11th respondents to be added as defendants to the main suit and as respondents in the resulting applications.
  • Applicants granted leave to amend pleadings in Civil Suit No. 293 of 2016 and Miscellaneous Application No. 284 of 2021.
  • Applicants to file amended plaint and application within 15 days from the date of delivery of this ruling.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Joinder of Parties — Necessary Parties — Test for Joinder
For a party to be joined on the ground that their presence is necessary for the effective and complete settlement of all questions involved in the suit, it is necessary to show either that the orders sought would legally affect the interest of that person and that it is desirable to have that person joined to avoid multiplicity of suits, or that the defendant could not effectually set up a desired defence unless that person was joined or an order made that would bind that other person.
Joinder of Parties — Purpose — Avoidance of Multiplicity of Suits
The purpose of joinder of parties is to avoid multiplicity of suits. Under section 33 of the Judicature Act, the court has powers to grant remedies so that as far as possible all matters in controversy between the parties are completely and finally determined and all multiplicities of legal proceedings concerning any of the matters avoided.
Service of Process — Dismissal for Want of Service
Under Order 5 rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, where service has not been effected within twenty-one days from the date of issue and there is no application for an extension of time, or the application for extension of time has been dismissed, the suit shall be dismissed without notice.
Affidavit Evidence — Failure to File Affidavit in Reply
Where no affidavit in reply is filed, the affidavit in support is taken to be unchallenged and truthful, subject to whether the contents pass the test of evidence and are cogent and of probative value.
Amendment of Pleadings — Court's Discretion
Under Order 6 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend their pleadings on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The court will exercise its discretion to allow amendment where the application is not barred by law, is not brought in bad faith, and will not work an injustice or prejudice against the other parties.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (3)

  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd [1999] IEA 55
  • Gokaldas Tanna v Store Rose Muyinza (High Court Civil Suit No. 7076 of 1987)
  • Tororo District Administration v Andalalapo Ltd [1997] KALR 126

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dilbagh_Singh_properties_Ltd_and_Anor_v_John_Seromba_and_10_ors_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._2072_of_2022)_[2022]_UGHCLD_171_(6_September_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.