Wakilii

Hajj Jamada Waligo v Finny Mukasa (Miscellaneous Application No. 855 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 122 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection to miscellaneous application for discovery and joint survey arising from civil suit
Decision
Application dismissed for procedural non-compliance

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

An application for discovery and joint survey under Order 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules must be brought by summons in chambers, not by notice of motion. Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution is not a magic wand to excuse non-compliance with prescribed procedural rules. Where specific procedure is provided by law, it must be followed unless court directs otherwise. The application was improperly brought and dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed for procedural non-compliance

Facts

The applicant brought a miscellaneous application by notice of motion seeking orders for discovery and joint survey of land comprised in two plots (Volume 4598 Folio 18 Block 7 Plot 1289 and Volume 4741 Folio 1 Block 7 Plot 2064) at Kibuye, Makindye Division. The application arose from Civil Suit No. 758 of 2019. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the application was improperly brought, arguing that Order 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires such applications to be brought by summons in chambers, not by notice of motion. The applicant conceded having no legal interest in the suit land but claimed equitable interest through 25 years of possession, and urged the court to invoke Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution to determine the application on merit.

Issues

  1. Whether the instant application is properly brought before this court.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection upheld.
  • Application dismissed with costs to the respondent for being improperly brought before court.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Discovery and Interrogatories — Proper Procedure for Applications
Applications for discovery and interrogatories under Order 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules must be brought by summons in chambers as prescribed by Order 10 rule 24, not by notice of motion.
Civil Procedure — Constitutional Provisions — Limits of Article 126(2)(e)
Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution of Uganda 1995 is not a magic wand in the hands of defaulting litigants and was not intended to wipe out rules of procedure. Where specific procedure is provided by law, it must be adhered to unless otherwise directed by court.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (1)

  • Mathias Lwanga Kaganda v Uganda Electricity Board (Civil Suit No. 124 of 2003)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hajj_Jamada_Waligo_v_Finny_Mukasa_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._855_of_2025)_[2025]_UGHCLD_122_(8_July_2025)
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.