John Sebataana v Abanenamer Yorakam & Anor (Civil Suit No. 99 of 2005)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

Held that failure to state the value of the subject matter in the plaint is a curable defect under Order 7 rule 9(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules and does not warrant rejection under Order 7 rule 11. However, where a plaintiff sues through attorneys and fails to annex the power of attorney to the plaint as required by Order 7 rule 14(1), the attorneys lack authority and locus to sue. Such a defect is fatal and cannot be cured by amendment. Suit dismissed with costs to the defendants.

Outcome

Suit dismissed with costs to defendants

Facts

The plaintiff sued through four named attorneys in a land dispute. At the scheduling conference on 23 November 2009, counsel for the defendants raised two preliminary objections: first, that the plaint failed to state the value of the subject matter; and second, that no power of attorney was annexed to the plaint. Counsel for the plaintiff conceded both defects but sought leave to amend the plaint. The plaintiff admitted he was in possession of the power of attorney but had not produced it with the plaint.

Issues

1. Whether the plaint should be rejected for failing to state the value of the subject matter.
2. Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action where the power of attorney authorising the attorneys to sue was not annexed to the plaint.

Orders

• First preliminary objection succeeds.
• Second preliminary objection upheld in the affirmative.
• Civil Suit No. 99 of 2005 dismissed with costs to the defendants.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 rule 1(i)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 rule 11
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 rule 9(3)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 rule 14(1)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Kazooba John Vianney and Another v Rt. Rev Rtd. Bishop John Ntegyereize (Miscellaneous Application 919 of 2016)
• Sebunya v Kyomukama (Miscellaneous Cause No. 55 of 2012)
• Uganda Performing Rights Society v MTN (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 287 of 2010)

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