Wakilii

Law Development Centre v Hon Mabikke (Miscellaneous Application No. 203 of 2021)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 69 · 2023 Application Granted — Plaint Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out plaint arising from Civil Suit No. 202 of 2020
Decision
Plaint in the main suit struck out

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (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 3 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

The High Court held that the plaint in the main suit was incompetent and an abuse of court process on multiple grounds. The court found that while one affidavit in reply was properly filed, two additional affidavits were filed out of time without leave and were struck out. The suit was partly res judicata in respect of matters previously determined. The defamation claim was incompetent for failure to set out the allegedly defamatory words verbatim. The contempt claim failed as the Supreme Court made no enforceable orders. The claim could not rely on test suits as no such suits were properly designated. The plaint was prolix, argumentative, and offensive to pleading rules. Most significantly, the suit was a disguised judicial review and human rights enforcement action improperly brought by ordinary plaint rather than by motion on notice as required by law. The plaint was struck out with costs to the applicant.

Outcome

Plaint in the main suit struck out

Facts

The Respondent was awarded a post graduate diploma in legal practice by the Applicant (Law Development Centre) on 3 September 2010. Following complaints of examination malpractice, the Applicant appointed an audit committee which found discrepancies in the Respondent's diploma award. A Justice Kania Committee was appointed to investigate, but the Respondent and another challenged this in HCMA No. 2 of 2013. The High Court upheld the audit committee report but found the Justice Kania Committee improperly constituted. A new Dr. Pamela Committee was appointed, conducted hearings from June to November 2015, and recommended revocation of the Respondent's diploma. The Management Committee adopted this recommendation in February 2016. In January 2020, the Respondent filed the present suit challenging the revocation as unconstitutional, illegal, and in violation of natural justice. The Applicant brought this application to strike out the plaint on multiple grounds including res judicata, improper pleading, and disguised judicial review.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavits in reply filed by the Respondent were defective and should be struck out.
  2. Whether the main suit is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
  3. Whether the plaint is incompetent for failure to properly plead a defamation cause of action.
  4. Whether the plaint is incompetent in so far as it alleges contempt of a ruling of the Supreme Court.
  5. Whether the plaint is incompetent in seeking to enforce previous court judgments as test suits.
  6. Whether the plaint is prolix, argumentative, and offensive to the rules of pleadings.
  7. Whether the main suit is a disguised judicial review application that is time barred.
  8. Whether the main suit is a disguised application for human rights enforcement improperly brought by plaint.

Orders

  • The application is allowed.
  • The plaint in HCCS No. 202 of 2020 is struck out.
  • The costs of the application and of the main suit shall be met by the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Time limits for filing — Order 12 rule 3(2) CPR
A reply to an interlocutory application must be filed within 15 days from the date of service of the application. Where an affidavit in reply is filed beyond the 15-day period prescribed by Order 12 rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the party must first seek and obtain leave of court to file out of time. An affidavit filed out of time without leave of court is irregularly filed and must be struck off the record.
Civil Procedure — Res judicata — Section 7 Civil Procedure Act — Elements of the doctrine
The doctrine of res judicata bars a fresh suit where: (a) there was a former suit between the same parties or their privies; (b) the matter was heard and finally determined by the court on its merits; (c) the matter was heard and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction; and (d) the fresh suit concerns the same subject as the previous suit. Matters which were not in existence at the time of the previous suit and could not have been litigated are not barred by res judicata.
Civil Procedure — Defamation — Pleading requirements — Order 7 CPR
In a suit for defamation, the allegedly defamatory words must be set out verbatim in the plaint. It is not sufficient to set out the substance or effect of the defamatory words. Where the defamatory matter is part of a longer passage, only the defamatory part need be set out provided the remainder would not vary the meaning. A plaint that fails to quote the allegedly defamatory words verbatim is incompetent and does not disclose a cause of action for defamation.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of court — Jurisdiction — Enforcement of orders
Proceedings for civil contempt are a form of execution and enforcement of the order alleged to have been violated. A party cannot found a cause of action in contempt of a court order in a court other than the court that passed the order, particularly where the two courts are at different levels. The High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain contempt proceedings in respect of an order of the Supreme Court. Further, findings or recommendations contained in a judgment do not constitute enforceable court orders capable of founding contempt proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Test suits — Order 39 rule 1 CPR — Requirements for designation
A suit does not automatically become a test suit. The selection of a test suit requires: (i) two or more persons must have instituted suits against the same defendant; (ii) those persons could have been joined as co-plaintiffs in one suit; (iii) selection is made by the court upon application by any party; (iv) the court must be satisfied that the issues to be tried in each suit are precisely similar; (v) the court makes an order directing that one suit be tried as a test suit; and (vi) the court stays all steps in the other suits pending determination. A suit filed after the determination of previous suits cannot be designated a test suit, nor can previous suits retroactively become test suits for a later action.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Prolixity — Order 19 rule 3 CPR
Prolixity in pleadings means unnecessary and superfluous stating of facts and legal arguments. An affidavit or plaint that is excessively wordy, argumentative, and repetitive is prolix and offensive to the rules of pleading. A plaint containing numerous wordy, argumentative, and repetitive paragraphs that makes difficult reading and causes one to lose their way while trying to comprehend the averments is an abuse of the court process and may be struck out.
Administrative Law — Judicial review — Disguised applications — Rule 3(1) Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules
An application for prerogative orders of mandamus, prohibition, or certiorari must be made by way of an application for judicial review in accordance with the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules. There is no other way under the law in which prerogative remedies can be accessed other than through invocation of the court's power of judicial review. A suit brought by ordinary plaint that seeks to challenge an administrative decision of a public body on grounds of illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety is a disguised application for judicial review and is incompetent. The court cannot entertain such a claim under ordinary civil procedure even if framed as seeking declaratory relief.

Legislation cited (25)

Cases cited (21)

  • Male H. Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Attorney General (SC Misc. Application No. 7 of 2018)
  • Mugoya Construction and Engineering Company Ltd v Central Electricals International Ltd (Misc. Suit No. 699 of 2011)
  • Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank (HCMA No. 333 of 2010)
  • Kuluo Joseph Andrew & Others v Attorney General (HCMA No. 106 of 2010)
  • Kizito v Kampala Financial Services Ltd & 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 30 of 2016)
  • Dr. Kizza Besigye v Museveni & Another (SC Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Maniraguha Gashumba v Sam Nkundiye (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2005)
  • Ponsiano Semakula Vs Susane Magala & Others, 1993 KALR 213
  • Bithum Charles v Adoge Sally (HCCS No. 20 of 2015)
  • Ganatra v. Ganatra [2007] 1 EA 76
  • Karia & Another v. Attorney General & Others [2005] 1 EA 83
  • Attorney General & Another v Charles Mark Kamoga (Misc. Application No. 1018 of 2015)
  • John Kizito v The Red Pepper Publication (HCCS No. 624 of 2016)
  • Rtd. Col. Kiiza Besigye v Electoral Commission & Another (Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2006)
  • Angelina Lamunu Langoya v Olweny George William (HCC Misc. Application No. 30 of 2019)
  • Law Development Centre v Akampurira Godfrey (HCMA No. 172 of 2020)
  • Kasaija & Another v Barclays Bank Uganda Ltd (HCMA No. 88 of 2011)
  • Michael Mabikke v Law Development Centre (SC Misc. Application No. 16 of 2015)
  • Seguya v Attorney General (HCMC No. 261 of 2019)
  • Hon. Mukasa Mbidde and Hon. Michael Mabikke v Law Development Centre (HCMA No. 2 of 2013)
  • Hon. Mukasa Mbidde and Hon. Michael Mabikke v Law Development Centre (SC Misc. Application No. 15 of 2015)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

Law Development Centre v Hon Mabikke (Miscellaneous Application No. 203 of 2021) [2023] UGHCCD 69 (31 March 2023)
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.