Kasule & Another v D.A.P Custodian Board & Another (Civil Suit 751 of 1991)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The court granted an oral application to consolidate two related civil suits. Both suits involved the same plaintiffs, the same first defendant, and identical questions of law and fact concerning recovery of mailo land allegedly transferred without proper consent. Despite the Civil Procedure Rules requiring an application by chamber summons, the court exercised its discretion and inherent powers to waive this procedural requirement as no prejudice would result and justice would better be served by expediting disposal through consolidation.

Outcome

Consolidation application granted; suits to be heard together

Facts

Hawa Kasule and Nuru Kasule filed two separate civil suits (HCCS 751/91 and HCCS 752/91) against the D.A.P. Custodian Board and different second defendants in each suit. Both suits concerned recovery of mailo land comprised in plots at Mulago that had originally belonged to their late father, Musa Kasule. The land had been leased in 1967 to Serwano Bulunga Kigozi and subsequently transferred to the respective second defendants. The plaintiffs alleged the transfers were void for lack of consent from the controlling authority. The first suit had commenced with the first plaintiff giving testimony when counsel orally applied for consolidation. Both plaints and written statements of defence in the two suits were drafted in identical terms.

Issues

1. Whether the court should exercise its discretion to consolidate two pending civil suits involving the same parties and similar questions of law and fact.
2. Whether an oral application for consolidation should be accepted when the Civil Procedure Rules require a chamber summons.

Orders

• The two suits (HCCS 751/91 and HCCS 752/91) be consolidated and heard together.
• No further or separate proceedings should be taken in HCCS 752/91 until further orders of this court.
• Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 10A Rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 10A Rule 2

Cases cited (1)

• General Manager E.A. P. & H.A. v Thierstein [1968] EA 554

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Kasule and Another v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board and Others (Civil Suit 751 of 1991; Civil Suit 752 of 1991)
• Kasule & Another v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Suit 751 of 1991; Civil Suit 752 of 1991)

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