Wakilii

Kampala City Council V Crested Crane Tours & Travel Ltd (Civil Appeal 16 of 2004)

Court of Appeal · [2013] UGCA 12 · 2013 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court judgment in favour of the plaintiff
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs; High Court judgment in favour of the respondent upheld

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 Court of Appeal considered whether the appellant local government was duly served with a statutory notice of intention to sue. A copy of the notice, annexed to the plaint and bearing the rubber stamp and signature of the City Advocate's Office, was held to be prima facie evidence of service. Service on the City Advocate was effective service on the Town Clerk under Regulation 26 of the Local Government Act. Once the respondent produced prima facie evidence of service, the evidential burden shifted to the appellant to prove non-service, which it failed to do, having neither pleaded a specific denial nor cross-examined on the point. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs; High Court judgment in favour of the respondent upheld

Facts

The respondent sued the appellant local government in the High Court and obtained judgment in its favour on 21 August 2003. As a local government, the appellant was entitled to a statutory notice of intention to sue before proceedings. The respondent issued a notice dated 8 February 1999, a copy of which was annexed to the plaint. The copy bore the rubber stamp of the appellant's Legal Department, City Advocate's Office, dated 12 February 1999, together with a signature. The appellant contended that service was not effective because the notice was not served on the Town Clerk in person. On appeal, counsel for the appellant conceded that service on the City Advocate was effective service on the Town Clerk under Regulation 26 of the Local Government Act, but argued that service on any person at the City Advocate's Office was insufficient. The appellant had not specifically traversed the averment of service in its defence, and no witness testified on the issue, nor was it raised in cross-examination.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned trial judge erred when he found that the appellant was duly served with the statutory notice of intention to sue.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent in this court and in the court below.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Suits Against Local Government — Statutory Notice of Intention to Sue — Effective Service on City Advocate as Agent of Town Clerk
Service of a statutory notice of intention to sue upon the City Advocate constitutes effective service upon the Town Clerk for the purposes of Regulation 26 of the Third Schedule to the Local Government Act, the City Advocate being a recognised agent of the Town Clerk responsible for legal matters of the council.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Shifting Evidential Onus — Prima Facie Proof of Service
A copy of a notice of intention to sue annexed to the plaint and bearing the rubber stamp and signature of the recipient's office is prima facie evidence of service; once such prima facie evidence is presented, the evidential burden shifts to the defendant to prove that service was not effected.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Failure to Specifically Traverse Averment — Consequences at Trial
A defendant who fails to specifically traverse an averment of service in its written statement of defence, and who does not challenge the evidence of service in cross-examination, cannot later adduce evidence on the unpleaded matter, and the evidence of service on record remains unchallenged.
Civil Procedure — Statutory Notice — Effect of Failure to Serve on Local Government
Failure to serve a statutory notice of intention to sue upon government, a local government, or a scheduled corporation before filing a suit renders the whole suit incompetent.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Civil Procedure and Limitations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act
  • Local Government Act Cap 243, Third Schedule, Regulation 26
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 86

Cases cited (7)

  • Micheal Sansa and Others v Kampala City Council (HCCS No. 482 of 1999)
  • The City Division Council of Rubaga v Jimmy Muyanja (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2002)
  • Kampala City Council v Nuliyati [1974] EA 400
  • Impact Process Ltd v City Council of Kampala (HCCS No. 929 of 1997)
  • Besigye Kizza v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta and Another (Supreme Court Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • James Mboijana v Caroline Mboijana (Civil Appeal No. 87 of 2002)
  • Sloney Vs Easlborne Rd Council (1927) 1 Ch. 367, 397

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kampala City Council V Crested Crane Tours & Travel Ltd (Civil Appeal 16 of 2004) [2013] UGCA 12 (27 September 2013)
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.