Wakilii

Mukiibi Arthur Katende v Babumba Sarah Sebunya [2026] UGHC 665

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application in a civil suit seeking leave to issue a third party notice for indemnity or contribution
Decision
Application for third party notice dismissed; main suit (Civil Suit No. 200 of 2025) proceeds without the proposed third party

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 applicant, sued for recovery of UGX 43,000,000, sought a third party notice against a person he alleged received the money on the plaintiff's instructions. The court held that a third party notice under Order 1 Rule 14(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules requires the subject matter and cause of action between the defendant and the third party to be the same as that between the plaintiff and the defendant, and a direct right of indemnity generally arising from contract. No evidence linked the proposed third party to the acknowledged sum or established any contractual relationship with the plaintiff. Further, where an agent acts for a principal, liability rests with the principal. Application dismissed; no order as to costs because no reply was filed.

Outcome

Application for third party notice dismissed; main suit (Civil Suit No. 200 of 2025) proceeds without the proposed third party

Facts

The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 200 of 2025 against the applicant and two others, seeking a declaration that she was the lawful owner/bona fide purchaser of land at Busiro Block 554 and Block 554 Plot 13, vacant possession, a permanent injunction, recovery of UGX 43,000,000 from the applicant (1st defendant) and general damages. The respondent relied on a memorandum of acknowledgement and undertaking dated 20 March 2022 signed by the applicant, in which he acknowledged receiving UGX 100,000,000 from the respondent as a deposit for purchase of 105 acres, stated that UGX 57,000,000 had been paid and undertook to pay the balance of UGX 43,000,000 on demand. Cheques issued by the applicant were said to have bounced. In his defence and in this application the applicant asserted that the money had been paid to Mahdi Mutebi on the respondent's instructions, including a deposit to compensate squatters, and that he was entitled to indemnity or contribution from Mutebi, who was not a party to the suit. The only document mentioning Mutebi was a letter dated 8 October 2020 written by the 3rd defendant introducing Mutebi and the applicant as his agents to negotiate with squatters. The application was unopposed.

Issues

  1. Whether there were grounds for the issuance of a third party notice to Mahdi Mutebi under Order 1 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • The application for issuance of a third party notice is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Third Party Proceedings — Conditions for Issuance of Third Party Notice under Order 1 Rule 14
A third party notice may only issue where the subject matter and original cause of action between the defendant and the proposed third party are the same as those between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the defendant has a direct right of indemnity or contribution against that person.
Contract Law — Indemnity and Contribution — Requirement of an Express or Implied Contractual Basis
A right of indemnity supporting third party proceedings must generally arise from a contract, express or implied, and cannot be founded on documents authored by a person other than the plaintiff which disclose no contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the proposed third party.
Commercial Law — Agency — Liability of Principal for Acts of Agent
Where a person acts as an agent, liability for acts done within the agency rests with the principal, so proof of agency alone does not create a right of indemnity against the agent as a third party.
Evidence — Unopposed Applications — Judicial Scrutiny of Unchallenged Affidavits
Although the contents of an unchallenged affidavit are generally presumed admitted, the court does not rubber-stamp them and must still satisfy itself that the deposition passes judicial scrutiny and establishes the grounds for the relief sought.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (3)

  • Samwiri Massa Vs Ruth Achieng [1978] HCB 297
  • Semandaisima Moses v Airtel Uganda Ltd and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 996 of 2020)
  • DSS Motors Ltd v Afri Tours and Travel Ltd (Civil Suit No. 12 of 2003)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mukiibi Arthur Katende v Babumba Sarah Sebunya [2026] UGHC 665 (1 June 2026)
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.