Wakilii

Kampala City Council v Victoria International Trading Co. Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 666 of 2006)

High Court · [2007] UGCOMMC 19 · 2007 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out suit for non-compliance with statutory notice requirements under Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and Local Governments Act
Decision
Application to strike out suit dismissed; main suit may proceed

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

Held that the respondent had adduced sufficient evidence to raise a presumption that statutory notice was properly served on the applicant by producing a stamped and signed copy of the notice. The burden then shifted to the applicant to rebut this presumption by adducing evidence that the stamp or signature was not genuine. The applicant failed to discharge this burden. Further, the affidavit in support of the application was incompetent because the deponent swore to facts based on her own knowledge when she was not Town Clerk at the material time. The application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application to strike out suit dismissed; main suit may proceed

Facts

Victoria International Trading Co. Ltd sued Kampala City Council in Civil Suit No. 21 of 2006, claiming breach of a market management contract. The respondent claimed it had served statutory notice of intention to sue dated 15 November 2005. The applicant denied receipt of the notice and filed an application to strike out the suit for non-compliance with the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and the Local Governments Act. The applicant's application was supported by an affidavit sworn by Ruth Kijjambu, who became Acting Town Clerk only in September 2006, several months after the alleged service in November 2005. The respondent produced a copy of the notice bearing a stamp of the Town Clerk, the word 'Received', and a signature.

Issues

  1. Whether the statutory notice of intention to sue was properly served on the applicant (Kampala City Council) before institution of the suit.
  2. Whether the affidavit in support of the application was competent where the deponent was not Town Clerk at the material time when notice was allegedly served.
  3. Whether the applicant discharged the burden of proving non-service of the statutory notice.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.
  • Costs certified for one counsel only.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Statutory Notice — Burden of Proof — Service of Notice Under Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act
Where a defendant denies service of statutory notice, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove that the notice was served. Once the plaintiff produces a copy of the notice bearing the stamp of the relevant officer's office, the word 'Received', and a signature, this raises a presumption of proper service. The burden then shifts back to the defendant to rebut the presumption by adducing evidence that the stamp or signature is not genuine.
Civil Procedure — Service of Statutory Notice — Mode of Service on Local Government — Local Governments Act
Under Regulation 26(1) of the Third Schedule to the Local Governments Act, any summons, notice or other document required or authorised to be served on an urban council shall be served by delivering it to, or by sending it by registered post addressed to, the Town Clerk. Service is properly effected when delivered to the office of the Town Clerk.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Competence — Personal Knowledge Requirement
Under Order 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, an affidavit must be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his or her own knowledge to prove. Where a deponent swears that facts are true to the best of her knowledge but was not in office at the material time when those facts occurred, the affidavit is incompetent and constitutes a falsehood. An application supported by such an affidavit is incompetent.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.7 r.11(d)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.19
  • Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap.72 s.2(1)
  • Local Governments Act Cap.243 Regulation 26(1) of the Third Schedule

Cases cited (2)

  • Michael Sansa and Others v Kampala City Council (HCCS No. 482 of 1999)
  • Fancy Stores Ltd and Another v UCB (HCCS No. 9 of 1992)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kampala City Council v Victoria International Trading Co. Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 666 of 2006) [2007] UGCommC 19 (25 February 2007)
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.