Kintu Martin v Kavuma David and Others (Miscellaneous Application No.3372 of 2024)
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 substitution of parties and amendment of plaint were not feasible where the 3rd Respondent was deceased and the 2nd and 4th Respondents were the same person. However, the court ordered the Commissioner Land Registration to provide certified copies of the white page for the suit land, as such documents are relevant and credible evidence for determining land ownership and encumbrances, and the Commissioner is the statutory custodian of registered land information.
Outcome
Application partly allowed — substitution and amendment refused; production of land registry documents ordered
Facts
The Applicant filed Civil Suit No. 542 of 2021 seeking to obtain title for land comprised in Busiro Block 424 Plot 142 at Mpala. He initially sued the 2nd Respondent intending to request court to appoint him nominee administrator of the deceased Muhamadi Rahamutula. In November 2024, the Applicant discovered that the estate had administrators (the 3rd and 4th Respondents) when he came across their application for a special certificate of title. He then sought to substitute them as defendants and amend his plaint accordingly. The 1st and 2nd Respondents opposed, stating that the 3rd Respondent (Wahib Muhamed) had died in January 2021, and that the 2nd and 4th Respondents were the same person (Mansour Mohammad, also known as Marjani M.M). The Applicant also sought certified copies of the white page from the Commissioner Land Registration to prove the existence of the title.
Issues
- Whether the 3rd and 4th Respondents should be substituted for the 2nd Respondent.
- Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to amend his plaint.
- Whether the 5th Respondent should be compelled to provide certified copies of the white page and instruments affecting the land comprised in Busiro Block 424 Plot 142 at Mpala.
Orders
- Application for substitution of parties dismissed.
- Application for leave to amend plaint dismissed.
- The 5th Respondent to provide at least three certified copies of the white page pertaining to the land comprised in Busiro Block 424 Plot 142 at Mpala.
- The Applicant to bear any necessary costs of securing the said certified copies.
- Costs of this Application awarded to the 1st and 2nd Respondents.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
- Judicature Act Cap 16 s.37
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.22(a)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 1 rule 10(1)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 1 rule 13
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 19
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 10 rule 12(1)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 10 rule 14
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rules 1, 2 and 3
Cases cited (6)
- Rajab Mudaki and Others v Best Kemigisha and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 90 of 2021)
- The Fort Hall Bakery Supply Co. V Frederick Muigai Wangoe [1959] 1 EA 474 (SCK)
- Abdulrahman Elamin v Dhabi Group (Civil Appeal No. 215 of 2013)
- Gaso Transport services (Bus) Ltd Vs Obene (1990-1994) EA 88
- Mulowooza and Brothers Ltd v Shah and Co. Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
- Patricia Mutesi v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 912 of 2016)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.