Wakilii

Katongole & 4 Others v Kasolo (Miscellaneous Cause 31 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 71 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ex parte application for leave to file a representative suit on behalf of Muslim community members
Decision
Application granted with conditions regarding notice by public advertisement

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

Leave to file a representative suit granted where applicants showed they and 26 other members of Gayaza Masjid Jaamia Muslim community shared the same interest in protecting donated land, had written authorization, and satisfied statutory requirements under Order 1 Rule 8 Civil Procedure Rules. Notice by public advertisement to all represented persons required before suit proceeds.

Outcome

Application granted with conditions regarding notice by public advertisement

Facts

In 2004, the respondent Hajji Ali Kasolo donated land measuring 33ft by 36ft as a gift inter vivos to the Muslim community of Gayaza within Bulamu Deputy LC1. The Muslims of Gayaza, including the applicants and over 26 others, built a mosque known as Gayaza Masjid Jaamia on the donated land. In 2017, the community discovered that the original donation instruments executed in 2004 and 2011 had not been signed by representatives of the Muslim community. The parties executed a proper gift deed on 15 September 2017 between Hajji Ali Kasolo as donor and representatives of the Muslim community as donees, which was registered. In April 2020, the applicants discovered a letter from the respondent to the Supreme Mufti purporting to revoke the gift, change the mosque's name and management, and transfer ownership contrary to the Muslim community's constitution. The applicants sought leave to file a representative suit on behalf of themselves and over 26 other Muslims of Gayaza.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants have satisfied the conditions precedent for granting leave to file a representative suit

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The Applicants namely Katongole Abdallah, Abdul Muwonge, Dauda Kiggundu, Darawusi Kibuuka and Kagude Nuhu granted leave to file a representative suit against the respondent on behalf of themselves and over 26 other Muslims of Gayaza trading as Gayaza Masjid Jaamia.
  • Notice of institution of suit to be served by public advertisement in accordance with Order 1 Rule 8(4) of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules.
  • Notice must state nature of claim and reliefs sought, list all persons represented, names of advocates and address for service, date of issuance and provisions under which issued.
  • Applicants to return service to Court.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Representative Suits — Requirements for Leave
For leave to file a representative suit to be granted under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, an applicant must satisfy the court that all plaintiffs have an actual and existing interest in the subject matter, all persons represented have authorized the applicant in writing, and the application is brought with a proposed plaint showing a list of all persons represented and demonstrating that all have the same actual and existing interest.
Civil Procedure — Representative Suits — Notice Requirement
Where leave to file a representative suit is granted, the court must give notice of the institution of the suit to all persons represented either by personal service or, where such service is not reasonably practicable due to the number of persons, by public advertisement, to ensure intended plaintiffs have consented to representation and to allow other interested persons to join the suit.
Civil Procedure — Representative Suits — Binding Effect of Consent
Notice to intended plaintiffs in a representative suit is crucial because the subsequent outcome of proceedings is binding on such parties and one cannot feign ignorance of the proceedings or dispute his or her consent.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (2)

  • Mugisha Enos & 7 Others v Kyotera District Land Board (Misc. Cause No. 01 of 2021)
  • Nyabahika Geofrey & Another v The Registered Trustees of the Church of Uganda (Misc. Application No. 150 of 2021)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Katongole_&_4_Others_v_Kasolo_(Miscellaneous_Cause_31_of_2024)_[2024]_UGHCLD_71_(18_March_2024)
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.