Wakilii

Kampala International University v Hima Cement Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 304 of 2006)

High Court · [2007] UGCOMMC 63 · 2007 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Oral application by defendant to join Uganda Revenue Authority as co-defendant at scheduling conference
Decision
Application dismissed; matter to proceed to scheduling conference and determination on 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 court dismissed the defendant's application to join Uganda Revenue Authority as a co-defendant in a breach of contract suit. Held that URA's presence as a party was not necessary to effectually adjudicate the dispute between the plaintiff and defendant regarding an alleged breach of a cement supply contract. URA was a stranger to the contract and the matter was not liable to be defeated by its non-joinder. The plaintiff was entitled to choose whom to sue. The defendant could pursue third party notice proceedings if warranted.

Outcome

Application dismissed; matter to proceed to scheduling conference and determination on merits

Facts

Kampala International University sued Hima Cement Limited for breach of contract, alleging that the defendant failed to supply 50,000 tonnes of cement valued at Shs.17,600,000,000 under a contract providing for delivery in installments. At the scheduling conference on 7 June 2007, the defendant made an oral application to join Uganda Revenue Authority as a co-defendant, stating that URA had launched investigations regarding alleged misapplication of the contract cement. The defendant argued that URA's joinder would assist the court to effectually and completely adjudicate the matter. The plaintiff opposed the application.

Issues

  1. Whether Uganda Revenue Authority should be joined as a co-defendant in a breach of contract suit where it is not a party to the contract.
  2. Whether the court can effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit without URA's presence as a party.

Orders

  • Application to join Uganda Revenue Authority as co-defendant disallowed.
  • Suit to be determined on the merits between the plaintiff and defendant as parties to the contract.
  • Scheduling conference to proceed on 28th August 2007.
  • Costs to abide the outcome of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Necessary Parties — Test for Addition of Parties
A party may be joined in a suit not because there is a cause of action against it, but because that party's presence is necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the matter.
Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Plaintiff's Choice of Defendants
A plaintiff is entitled to choose the person against whom he wishes to proceed and leave out any person against whom he does not wish to proceed. A defendant will not generally be added against the plaintiff's wish.
Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Limits on Addition of Parties
There is no jurisdiction to order the addition of parties as defendants where the matter is not liable to be defeated by non-joinder, where they are not persons who ought to have been sued in the first instance, and where their presence is not necessary to enable the court effectively to adjudicate on all questions involved.
Civil Procedure — Third Party Notice — Appropriate Remedy for Defendant
Where a defendant seeks to bring in a third party to establish matters relating to contribution, indemnity, or liability over, third party notice proceedings are usually the proper course rather than joinder as a co-defendant.
Contract Law — Privity of Contract — Strangers to Contract
A person who is a stranger to a contract in terms of privity need not be joined as a party to adjudicate a dispute arising from breach of that contract, even if that person has some collateral connection to the subject matter.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.1 r.10(2)

Cases cited (2)

  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1998)
  • Coffee Works (Mugambi) Ltd v Kayemba (HCCS No. 505 of 1963)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kampala International University v Hima Cement Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 304 of 2006) [2007] UGCommC 63 (21 June 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.