Wakilii

Kiwanyi v Lukenge & Ors (Misc Application No. 587 of 2012)

High Court · [2013] UGHCCD 39 · 2013 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for joinder as co-defendant arising from ongoing civil suit
Decision
Application for joinder dismissed

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

Court dismissed the application for joinder as co-defendant. The applicant's presence was not necessary to determine the claims of trespass and compulsory acquisition against the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The dispute over who is entitled to compensation should be resolved in the separate Family Division suit concerning the administration of the deceased's estate, not in the main suit. A plaintiff cannot be forced to sue a party against whom he has no cause of action.

Outcome

Application for joinder dismissed

Facts

Abdul Karim Kiwanyi applied to be joined as a co-defendant in HCCS No. 315 of 2012, a suit in which Hakeem Lukenge (as legal representative of the late Haji Jaffer Sentamu's estate) claimed compensation from Uganda National Roads Authority and COWI Uganda Ltd for trespass and compulsory acquisition of land. The applicant claimed he was entitled to the compensation monies because he had lived on the land for 30 years and his crops and land had been valued by the respondents. He contended that the Letters of Administration held by the 1st respondent were being contested in a separate Family Division suit (HCCS No. 126 of 2012). Only the 1st respondent opposed the application. The 2nd respondent did not oppose and the 3rd respondent neither filed a reply nor attended.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be joined as a co-defendant to HCCS No. 315 of 2012 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the applicant's presence is necessary to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 1st Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Order 1 Rule 10(2) — Discretion of Court
The court has wide discretion under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules to add parties to suits at any stage, but such addition cannot be for the sake of it and there must be a compelling reason. The person sought to be added must be one who ought to have been joined in the first place, or whose presence is necessary to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit.
Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Plaintiff's Right to Choose Defendants
A plaintiff is at liberty to sue anybody he thinks he has a claim against and cannot be forced to sue somebody. A defendant will not generally be added against the plaintiff's wish where the plaintiff has no cause of action against the proposed defendant.
Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Necessity Test — Separate Disputes
Where a dispute between parties can be resolved in a separate pending suit without creating multiplicity of suits, and where the proposed defendant has no connection to the causes of action pleaded in the main suit, joinder is not necessary to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the issues in the main suit.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (5)

  • N.A Shah & Co Ltd v Mulowooza & Brothers Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 57 of 2009)
  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Martin Adala Abeno (SCCA No. 4 of 1994)
  • Major Roland Kakooza Mutale v Attorney General (Misc Application No. 665 of 2003)
  • Bahemuka v Anywar & Another [1987] HCB 71
  • Coffee Works (Mugambi) Ltd v Kayemba (HCCS No. 505 of 1963)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kiwanyi v Lukenge & Ors (Misc Application No. 587 of 2012) [2013] UGHCCD 39 (15 March 2013)
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.