Wakilii

Kirumira v Birungi and 2 Others (HCCS 44 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 263 · 2022 Preliminary Objections Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on two preliminary objections raised by the 1st and 2nd Defendants before commencement of scheduling and hearing
Decision
Preliminary objections dismissed; matter to proceed to scheduling and hearing

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 overruled both preliminary objections. The court held that the Plaintiff had locus standi to sue in his individual name because no business entity or partnership was pleaded in the plaint, and the alleged business arrangement did not require registration under the Partnership Act or Business Names Registration Act. The objection regarding the amended plaint was overruled because leave to amend had been granted by consent order. Costs were awarded to the Plaintiff against the 1st and 2nd Defendants.

Outcome

Preliminary objections dismissed; matter to proceed to scheduling and hearing

Facts

The Plaintiff sued the Defendants over property comprised in Busiro Block 383 Plot 13377 at Kitende in Wakiso District. He alleged that he entered into a business arrangement with the 1st Defendant pursuant to a memorandum of understanding, and that the 1st Defendant breached the terms by fraudulently transferring the property to the 2nd Defendant (her mother), who subsequently sold it to the 3rd Defendant. The 1st and 2nd Defendants denied the business arrangement and alleged the MOU was a forgery. Before scheduling, the 1st and 2nd Defendants raised two preliminary objections: that the Plaintiff lacked locus standi because he should have sued in the name of the alleged partnership business, and that the amended plaint was filed illegally without leave of court.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff has locus standi to institute the suit in his individual name.
  2. Whether the amended plaint was filed illegally without leave of court.

Orders

  • Both preliminary objections overruled.
  • Costs awarded to the Plaintiff against the 1st and 2nd Defendants.
  • Hearing of the suit to commence with scheduling fixed for February 13, 2023 at 10am.
  • Joint Scheduling Memorandum and Joint Trial Bundle to be filed by February 13, 2023.

Rules and key headnotes

Locus Standi — Right to Sue in Individual Name — Business Arrangement Distinguished from Partnership
Where a plaintiff pleads a business arrangement but does not contend that a business entity or partnership exists, nor that a business name was assigned to the arrangement, the plaintiff has locus standi to sue in his individual name and is not required to sue in the name of a partnership or registered business.
Preliminary Objections — Questions of Fact Cannot Be Determined on Preliminary Objection
A preliminary objection raises pure questions of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded are correct. Where the existence of a business arrangement is disputed and is a question of fact to be ascertained at trial, a preliminary objection cannot be raised in respect of that question.
Amendment of Pleadings — Leave of Court — Consent Order
Where leave to amend a plaint has been granted by consent order, an objection that the amended plaint was filed illegally without leave of court is without merit and must be overruled.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (6)

  • Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership v URSB and 4 Others (MC No. 205 of 2021)
  • Regina Kavenya Mutuku & 3 Ors v United Insurance Co. Ltd [2002] 1 KLR
  • Kithende Appolonia and 2 Others v Eleanor Wismer (CACA No. 34 of 2010)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors 1969 EA at 696
  • Paul Nyamarere v Uganda Electricity Board (in Liquidation) (HCMA No. 290 of 2007)
  • Kakooza Mutale vs Attorney General & Ors [2001 - 2005] HCB 110

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kirumira v Birungi and 2 Others (HCCS 44 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 263 (16 December 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.