Wakilii

Kazooba John Vianney and Another v Rt. Rev Rtd. Bishop John Ntegyereize (Miscellaneous Application 919 of 2016)

High Court · [2017] UGCOMMC 307 · 2017 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application by defendants seeking to strike out plaint for failure to disclose a cause of action, lack of locus standi, lack of jurisdiction, and other preliminary objections.
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; main suit to proceed to full 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

The High Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the matter under Article 139(1) of the Constitution, which gives the High Court unlimited jurisdiction. The court found that the respondent had locus standi since the cheques that formed the basis of the suit were issued in his name and he was personally involved in the transactions. The plaint disclosed a cause of action because the plaintiff enjoyed a right arising from the dishonoured cheques, that right was violated, and the defendants were liable. The preliminary objection was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; main suit to proceed to full hearing on merits.

Facts

The respondent/plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 853 of 2014 against the applicants/defendants claiming UGX 30,000,000, special damages of UGX 10,000,000, and general damages of UGX 40,000,000 for breach of contract. The claim arose from two post-dated cheques issued by the defendants which were dishonoured when presented to the bank. The defendants filed an application seeking to strike out the plaint, arguing it failed to disclose a cause of action, that the plaintiff lacked locus standi because he was merely an agent for one Lois Kansiime with whom a memorandum of understanding was signed, that the court lacked jurisdiction because the principal sum was only UGX 15,000,000 which fell under the Chief Magistrate's jurisdiction, and that the agreement was void for charging unlawful interest. The defendants also argued that the affidavit in support was defective because it was sworn by Kisembo Marjorie Ann who they claimed was a stranger to the transaction.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter.
  2. Whether the affidavit in support is defective for being sworn by Kisembo Anne Marjorie.
  3. Whether the respondent has locus standi to bring Civil Suit No. 853 of 2014.
  4. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiff/respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — High Court Unlimited Jurisdiction — Pecuniary Jurisdiction
Under Article 139(1) of the Constitution, the High Court has unlimited jurisdiction in all matters. The pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court is determined by the total value of the claims stated in the plaint, including special and general damages, not merely the principal sum claimed.
Civil Procedure — Locus Standi — Right to Sue — Holder for Value
A plaintiff has locus standi to institute a suit where cheques forming the basis of the claim are issued in his own name and he is deemed to be a holder for value under the Bills of Exchange Act, notwithstanding that an underlying agreement may have been entered on behalf of a third party.
Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Dishonoured Cheques — Bills of Exchange Act
A cause of action arises under section 47(1) of the Bills of Exchange Act when cheques are dishonoured by a bank. A plaint discloses a cause of action where the plaintiff enjoyed a right under the cheques, that right was violated by dishonour, and the defendants are liable as drawers of the cheques.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out Plaint — Test for Cause of Action — Assumption of Truth
In determining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action, only the plaint and its attachments are to be perused with the assumption that the averments therein are true. A defendant's challenge to the truth of the averments in the plaint is a matter for trial on the merits and cannot be determined on a preliminary objection.
Company Law — Directors — Authority to Swear Affidavits — Companies Act 2012
A director of a company under section 2 of the Companies Act 2012 includes any person occupying the position of director by whatever name called. A director who swears an affidavit on behalf of the company in matters before court is not a stranger to proceedings involving that company where the director has authority to manage and direct the affairs of the company.

Legislation cited (20)

Cases cited (25)

  • Kizza Besigye v Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecutions (Constitutional Petition No. 12 of 2016)
  • Sebataana v Abanenamar Yorokam and Francis Lwanga (HCCS No. 99 of 2005)
  • Makula International v Cardinal Eminence Nsubuga Wamala (1982) HCB 11
  • Siopra v Uganda Rehabilitation Development Association (HCCS of 1993)
  • Tororo Cement Co Ltd v Frokina International (SCCA No. 2 of 2001)
  • Baxi v Bank of India Ltd (1966) EA 130
  • Letang v Cooper (1965) 1 QB
  • Attorney General v Gen David Tinyefuza (SCCA No. 1 of 1997)
  • Attorney General v Olwoch (1972) EA 392
  • Kiggundu v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1993)
  • Micro Finance Support Centre Ltd v Uganda Entrepreneurship Association Ltd (HCCS No. 1007 of 2002)
  • Ahmed Kawoya Kangu v Bangu Aggrey Fred and Another (SCCA No. 4 of 2007)
  • Arthur Tindimwebwa & Others v Joy Muhereza & Another (HCC Appeal No. 55 of 2010)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Aba Trade International Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 567 of 2010)
  • Chesoni & Another v Silvester (2006) EA 39
  • Fulgensius Mungereza v Africa Central (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2002)
  • Redfox Bureau De Change v Anke Alemayehu and Another (HCCS No. 1033 of 1999)
  • Ready Agro Suppliers Ltd v Is Uganda Development Bank (HCCS No. 379 of 2005)
  • Fakrudin & Another v Kampala District Land Board & Another (Civil Suit No. 570 of 2015)
  • Fenekansi Kiwanuka v Malkit Singh Sondo (HCMA No. 103 of 2004)
  • Auto Garage v Motokov (No. 3) (1971) EA 514
  • Jerai Sharif v Fancy Stores [1960] EA 374
  • Sukuku Agaitano v Uganda (HCCS 298 of 2012)
  • Shumuk Springs Development Ltd & Others v Joseph Sempebwa & Others (Miscellaneous Application 502 of 2013)
  • Kampala Rugby Union Football Club v Capital Ventures International Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 523 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kazooba John Vianney and Another v Rt. Rev Rtd. Bishop John Ntegyereize (Miscellaneous Application 919 of 2016) [2017] UGCommC 307 (23 February 2017)
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.