Wakilii

Kasajja Brian v Department Asian's Properties Custodian Board (Miscellaneous Application 46 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 239 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to add Attorney General as second respondent in judicial review proceedings arising from Miscellaneous Cause No. 02 of 2023
Decision
Application to add Attorney General dismissed; preliminary objection to procedural form overruled

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 an application to add a party brought by Chamber Summons under O.1 r.13 of the Civil Procedure Rules is procedurally valid, as a Chamber Summons constitutes a summons within the meaning of that rule. However, the application to add the Attorney General as second respondent was dismissed, the Court finding that the Respondent could be sued in its corporate name under s.4(3) of the Assets of Departed Asians Act and that the applicant failed to prove the Attorney General's presence was necessary for complete adjudication.

Outcome

Application to add Attorney General dismissed; preliminary objection to procedural form overruled

Facts

The applicant filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 02 of 2023 seeking judicial review of the Departed Asian's Properties Custodian Board's decision regarding Plot 22 Mvule Crescent Jinja. He subsequently brought Miscellaneous Application No. 46 of 2023 by Chamber Summons seeking leave to add the Attorney General as second respondent. The Respondent objected, arguing the application was improperly brought by Chamber Summons instead of Notice of Motion, and that adding the Attorney General was unnecessary because the Respondent could be sued in its corporate name. The applicant contended the Attorney General's presence was necessary because the matter involved challenging decisions of the Minister of Finance.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is properly before Court.
  2. Whether the applicant can add the Attorney General as the second respondent.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Joinder and Addition of Parties — Procedural Requirements — Chamber Summons versus Notice of Motion
An application to add a party under O.1 r.13 of the Civil Procedure Rules may be brought by either motion or summons, and a Chamber Summons constitutes a summons within the meaning of that rule.
Civil Procedure — Procedure and Pleadings — Citation of Wrong or Incomplete Legal Provisions — Effect on Competence of Application
Citing a wrong provision or omitting to cite a provision is not fatal to an application where the substance of the case is clear on the pleadings and the opposite party is not prejudiced.
Civil Procedure — Joinder and Addition of Parties — Test for Addition of Party — Necessity of Party's Presence
A party may be added not because there is a cause of action against it but because that party's presence is necessary to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the matter, and the applicant bears the burden of proving such necessity.
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Parties to Proceedings — Statutory Bodies with Corporate Capacity
Where a statute empowers a statutory body to sue and be sued in its corporate name, that body's decision may be challenged in judicial review proceedings by suing the body directly without joining the Attorney General, even where the decision emanates from a Minister who is a member of that body.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (7)

  • Banco Arab Espanola v Bank of Uganda (1999) 2 EA 22
  • National Enterprises Corporation v Mukisa Foods Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 42 of 1997)
  • Kinyara Sugar Limited v Kyomuhendo (Miscellaneous Application No. 61 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 179
  • Goldbeverages (U) Limited v Muhangura Kenneth and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 674 of 2019)
  • Yahya Kariisa v Attorney General and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1997) [1997] HCB 29
  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd (1999) EA 55
  • Vastine Kyalisima v Josephine Abaasa (Miscellaneous Application No. 500 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kasajja Brian v Department Asian's Properties Custodian Board (Miscellaneous Application 46 of 2023) [2023] UGHC 239 (20 October 2023)
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.