Wakilii

James Fredric Pool Nsubuga c/o Kitio & Co. Advocates (Civil Suit No.1296 87)

High Court · [1990] UGHC 11 · 1990 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection to plaint on jurisdictional pleading grounds
Decision
Matter to proceed to hearing on the merits

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 High Court held that a plaint satisfies Order 7 rule 1(f) of the Civil Procedure Rules when it pleads facts from which jurisdiction can be established, even if it does not expressly state that the named places are within the court's jurisdiction. The court may take judicial notice of geographical locations within Uganda. A plaint that identifies places where the plaintiff works and where the cause of action arose within Uganda sufficiently demonstrates jurisdiction. The preliminary objection was overruled.

Outcome

Matter to proceed to hearing on the merits

Facts

The plaintiff James Fredric Pool Nsubuga filed a civil suit against the Attorney General. The defendant raised a preliminary objection contending that the plaint was bad in law for failure to comply with Order 7 rule 1(f) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires a plaint to contain facts showing that the court has jurisdiction. The defendant argued that the plaint did not explicitly state that the locations mentioned (Ndeba Trading Centre, Lubiri Army Barracks, and Katwe Police Post) were within the jurisdiction of the High Court. The plaintiff's counsel responded that the plaint did contain sufficient facts: paragraph 1 showed the plaintiff worked for gain at Ndeba Trading Centre, and paragraphs 4 and 5 showed the cause of action arose at Lubiri Army Barracks and Katwe Police Post, all locations within Uganda and therefore within the High Court's jurisdiction under section 3(1) of the Judicature Act 1967.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaint complied with Order 7 rule 1(f) of the Civil Procedure Rules by containing facts showing that the court has jurisdiction in the matter.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Jurisdiction — Order 7 Rule 1(f) Civil Procedure Rules — Requirement to Plead Facts Showing Jurisdiction
Order 7 rule 1(f) of the Civil Procedure Rules imposes on a plaintiff the duty to state in the plaint facts showing that the court has jurisdiction in the matter, but mere assertion that the court has jurisdiction is insufficient.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Judicial Notice of Geographical Locations
A court may take judicial notice of the location of places within Uganda when determining whether a plaint contains facts showing jurisdiction, and it is not necessary for the plaintiff to expressly aver that named places are within the court's territorial jurisdiction if those places are identifiable as being within Uganda.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Facts Showing Jurisdiction Distinguished from Assertion of Jurisdiction
A plaint that identifies the place where the plaintiff works for gain and the locations where the causes of action arose, which are verifiable as being within Uganda, sufficiently pleads facts showing that the High Court has jurisdiction under section 3(1) of the Judicature Act 1967, even without expressly stating that the court has jurisdiction.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (3)

  • Assan and Sons Uganda Ltd v EA Records Ltd (1959) EA 360
  • Alexander G Mutongole v Nyanza Textile Industries Ltd (1971) EA 445
  • Bisuti v Busoga District Council (Civil Suit No. 83 of 1969)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

James Fredric Pool Nsubuga c_o Kitio & Co. Advocates (Civil Suit No.1296_87) [1990] UGHC 11 (15 October 1990)
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.