Wakilii

Katarikawe & 8 Ors v Turyamureeba (Miscellaneous Application No. 0169 of 2013)

High Court · [2014] UGHCCD 129 · 2014 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for an order directing the respondent to account for monies allegedly collected on behalf of the applicants, arising from earlier civil suit HCCS No. 207 of 1993
Decision
Application struck out on preliminary objections

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

An application for an account under Order 20 of the Civil Procedure Rules must arise from a suit on plaint where the plaintiff prays for an account. Without such a plaint, the application is incompetent and offends legal requirements. Further, actions founded on tort must be brought within six years from when the cause of action arose under the Limitation Act. Application struck out with costs.

Outcome

Application struck out on preliminary objections

Facts

Nine applicants alleged they were part of 133 plaintiffs who sued Kabarole District Local Council and the Attorney General in HCCS No. 207 of 1993 through their advocates. In 2000, they gave the respondent powers of attorney to represent them in the suit. Each plaintiff was awarded UGX 12 million plus 6% interest from April 1993. The applicants alleged the respondent collected UGX 17,133,946,000 from the Attorney General on their behalf but failed to account for these monies despite demands. They claimed the respondent formed a fictitious group called MECCABDA in 2004 to collect and misappropriate money meant for their association BUSEREDA. The applicants sought an order directing the respondent to account for monies received.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for an account can be entertained in the absence of a plaint praying for such relief.
  2. Whether the application is barred by time under the Limitation Act.

Orders

  • Application struck out with costs.
  • Two preliminary objections raised by counsel for the respondent upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Applications for Account — Requirement of Plaint
An application for an account under Order 20 of the Civil Procedure Rules presupposes the existence of a plaint in which the plaintiff prays for an account or where the relief sought involves the taking of an account. Without a plaint, such an application offends the legal requirement and is incompetent.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Taking of Accounts Without Prayer in Plaint
The High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain arguments on the taking of accounts when no such prayer was made in the plaint.
Civil Procedure — Limitation — Actions Founded on Tort
Under section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, actions founded on contract or tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action arose.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (2)

  • National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Pipeplastig Samkolit (K) Ltd and Another [2002] 2 EA 495
  • Bhatia v Crane Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 459 of 2002)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Katarikawe & 8 Ors v Turyamureeba (Miscellaneous Application No. 0169 of 2013) [2014] UGHCCD 129 (27 August 2014)
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.