Wakilii

Katabarwa and Others v Nsubuga and Another (Miscellaneous Application 2 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 303 · 2022 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from ruling of Assistant Registrar allowing amendment of plaint and proceeding ex parte
Decision
Ruling of Assistant Registrar upheld on substantive grounds but set aside on procedural grounds regarding costs; matter remitted for hearing 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

Held that the Assistant Registrar erred in proceeding ex parte and determining the application before the 15-day period for filing an affidavit in reply had expired, thereby occasioning procedural unfairness. However, the substantive decision to allow amendment of the plaint under Order 1 Rule 10 CPR was correct, as that provision permits substitution of wrongly sued parties to enable complete adjudication. The suit had not abated as the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules were not in force when the suit was filed and do not operate retrospectively. Appeal allowed in part on procedural grounds only; costs order of Assistant Registrar set aside.

Outcome

Ruling of Assistant Registrar upheld on substantive grounds but set aside on procedural grounds regarding costs; matter remitted for hearing on merits

Facts

The respondents filed Miscellaneous Application No. 19 of 2021 seeking to amend their plaint in Civil Suit No. 6 of 2019 to remove the appellants (wrongly sued parties) and correct other errors including plots that did not form part of the suit land. The application was served on the appellants on 10 December 2021. The Assistant Registrar scheduled the matter for hearing on 14 December 2021; neither the appellants nor their counsel appeared. A second hearing notice was served on 17 December 2021 for hearing on 20 December 2021. Again, no appearance was entered. The Assistant Registrar proceeded ex parte on 20 December 2021, allowed the application, and ordered costs in the cause. The appellants filed their affidavit in reply on 7 January 2022, only to discover the ruling had already been delivered. They appealed, arguing the ruling was premature as the 15-day period for filing a reply had not expired, that the suit had abated, and that the amendment was improper.

Issues

  1. Whether the Assistant Registrar erred in holding that the application was uncontested and proceeding ex parte before the time for filing a reply had expired.
  2. Whether the Assistant Registrar erred in allowing amendment of the plaint to substitute wrongly sued parties.
  3. Whether the suit had abated by operation of law such that the application was a nullity.

Orders

  • Appeal succeeds in part.
  • Orders as to costs before the Assistant Registrar set aside.
  • Appellants shall not be bound in costs in the cause and are discharged in that regard.
  • Appellants awarded half of the taxed bill of costs in this appeal.
  • Main suit to be fixed for hearing on its merits.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Substitution of Wrongly Sued Parties — Order 1 Rule 10 CPR
Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules permits the court at any stage of proceedings to strike out the name of any party improperly joined and to add any person whose presence is necessary to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon all questions involved in the suit. The power to substitute wrongly sued parties by amendment is properly exercised to avoid multiplicity of suits and enable determination of the real matter in controversy.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Proceedings — Time for Filing Reply — Premature Determination
Where an affidavit in reply is required, the court must not proceed ex parte or determine the application until the prescribed 15-day period for filing the reply has expired. To do so before expiry of the time limit occasions procedural unfairness and renders the ex parte proceedings irregular, even where the applicant was served with hearing notices.
Civil Procedure — Abatement of Suit — Retrospective Application of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules
The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, which came into effect on 31 May 2019, do not operate retrospectively. A suit filed before that date and in respect of which defences were filed before that date cannot be said to have abated under the new rules requiring summons for directions within 28 days of the last reply.
Civil Procedure — Computation of Time — Order 50 Rule 4 — Vacation Period Exclusion
In computing time for filing pleadings or replies, the period from 24 December to 15 January must be excluded pursuant to Order 50 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Where service is effected on 10 December, the 15-day period for reply does not expire until 20 January of the following year.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (6)

  • Wasswa v Moulders (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 685 of 2017)
  • Trustees of Rubaga Miracle Centre v Mulangira Ssimbwa (Miscellaneous Application No. 576 of 2006)
  • Mahmud Bharwani v Crane Bank Limited (in Receivership) (HCMA No. 656 of 2020)
  • Asaba Charles and Another v Kafeero Andrew and Another (HCMA No. 2004 of 2021)
  • Ramgarhia Sikh Society and 2 Others v Ramgarhia Sikh Education Society Ltd and 8 Others (HCMA No. 352 of 2015)
  • Patrick Senyondwa and Another v Lucy Nakitto (HCMA No. 1103 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Katabarwa_and_Others_v_Nsubuga_and_Another_(Miscellaneous_Application_2_of_2022)_[2022]_UGHCLD_303_(26_October_2022)
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.