Wakilii

Kampala Capital City Authority v Moses Kalungi (Misc. Application No. 2706 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 86 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to correct respondent's name and add parties to miscellaneous cause for recovery of property rates
Decision
Application granted; respondent's name corrected and two companies added as additional respondents to the underlying miscellaneous 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 High Court held that the use of the name Moses Kalungi instead of Kalungi Moses Kirumira was a curable misnomer, applying the reasonable reader test from Davies v Elsby Brothers Ltd. The court corrected the respondent's name and added Kalungi Estates Limited and K.J Company Limited as second and third respondents, finding their presence necessary for complete adjudication of property rates claims since they are now registered proprietors of two of the four properties in dispute.

Outcome

Application granted; respondent's name corrected and two companies added as additional respondents to the underlying miscellaneous cause

Facts

KCCA filed Misc. Cause No. 37 of 2023 against Moses Kalungi seeking to recover UGX 80,283,543.69 in property rates for four properties registered in that name at the time of valuation in 2017. After filing, KCCA discovered the respondent's full name was Kalungi Moses Kirumira. The respondent subsequently requested changes to the registered ownership of two properties: Plot 48 Kampala Road to Kalungi Estates Limited and Plot 16-18 William Street to K.J Company Limited. KCCA effected these changes and then applied to correct the respondent's name and add the two companies as parties. The respondent objected, arguing Moses Kalungi was a non-existent party and the suit was incurably defective. Evidence showed the respondent used the names Moses Kalungi, Kalungi Moses, Kalungi Kirumira Moses, and Kalungi Moses Kirumira interchangeably in correspondence with KCCA.

Issues

  1. Whether the misnomer in filing Misc. Cause No. 37 of 2023 can be cured?
  2. Whether it is necessary and proper to add Kalungi Estates Limited and K.J Company Limited as Respondents in Misc. Cause No. 37 of 2023?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Applicant is directed to amend Miscellaneous Cause No. 37 of 2023 to reflect the correct name of the Respondent as Kalungi Moses Kirumira.
  • The Applicant is granted leave to add Kalungi Estates Limited and K.J Company Limited as the 2nd and 3rd Respondents in Miscellaneous Cause No. 37 of 2023.
  • The Applicant shall file and serve the amended application to all the Respondents within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Ruling.
  • The added Respondents shall file and serve their affidavits in reply within twenty (20) days after receipt of the amended application and an affidavit in rejoinder to be filed within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the affidavits in reply.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Misnomer — Reasonable Reader Test — Correction of Party Name
A misnomer occurs where a party is wrongly named but is an existent person identifiable from the pleadings. The test for determining whether a naming error constitutes a curable misnomer is the reasonable reader test: how would a reasonable person receiving the document take it? If the reasonable reader would say 'Of course it must mean me, but they have got my name wrong', then there is a case of mere misnomer that can be corrected under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Civil Procedure — Amendment — Misnomer — Interchangeable Use of Names
Where a party uses multiple variations of their name interchangeably in correspondence and official documents, and does not object to ownership details captured under one variation while objecting to other matters, this demonstrates that the party is existent and the use of any particular name variation is a misnomer curable by amendment under Sections 98 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.
Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Necessary Parties — Complete Adjudication
Under Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may add a party whose presence is necessary to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. A party may be joined not because there is a cause of action against it, but because the orders sought would legally affect that party's interests and it is desirable to avoid multiplicity of suits.
Tax Law — Property Rates — Liability — Registered Owner
Under Section 6(1) of the Local Governments (Rating) Act, the person liable for payment of property rates is the owner of the property. Where ownership of rated properties is transferred to companies after the filing of a rates recovery suit, those companies must be added as parties since the orders sought may legally affect their interests as current registered proprietors.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (11)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017)
  • Namutebi Matilda v Ssemanda Simon and 2 Others (Misc. Application No. 430 of 2021)
  • AC Yefeng Construction Limited v The Registered Trustees of Living Word Assembly Church & Another (High Court Misc. Application No. 01 of 2021)
  • Davies v Elsby Brothers Ltd [1960] 3 All ER 672
  • The Board of Trustees Rubaga Miracle Center v Mulangira Ssimbwa (High Court Misc. Application No. 576 of 2006)
  • Sabric International Limited v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2020)
  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1998)
  • Kololo Curing Co. Ltd v West Mengo Co-op Union Ltd [1981] HCB 60
  • Yahaya Kariisa v Attorney General & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1994)
  • Amon v Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd [1956] 1 All ER

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kampala Capital City Authority v Moses Kalungi (Misc. Application No. 2706 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 86 (25 April 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.