Musa Kalokola and Others v Bugisu Muslim District Council (Miscellaneous Application No. 23 of 2025)

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.

Holding

The High Court granted the application for review, finding that the Respondent was a non-existent unregistered entity. Although the Applicants had obtained a search certificate in 2022 showing the Respondent was not registered, their failure to raise this before the earlier ruling constituted a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record rather than discovery of new evidence. A suit against a non-existent party is incurably fatal. The court set aside the costs order made in favour of the non-existent Respondent.

Outcome

Application for review granted; costs order in Miscellaneous Application No. 105 of 2024 set aside

Facts

The Applicants instituted Civil Suit No. 44 of 2018 against the Respondent. The Respondent filed Miscellaneous Application No. 105 of 2024 challenging the plaint for not disclosing a cause of action and lack of locus standi. The court struck out the plaint with costs to the Respondent. The Applicants then filed this review application, arguing they discovered the Respondent was not registered with the Uganda Registration Services Bureau. A search certificate dated 3 May 2022 confirmed Bugisu Muslim District Council was not a legally registered company. The Applicants sought review on grounds of discovery of new evidence and mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Respondent raised preliminary objections regarding service of unsigned documents and lack of instructions to counsel.

Issues

1. Whether the Applicants' application meets the criteria and sufficient grounds for the court to review and set aside the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 105 of 2024.
2. Whether the preliminary objections raised by the Respondent are valid.
3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

• It is declared that this application raises grounds for review.
• The order of costs made by this court in Miscellaneous Application No. 105 of 2024 is set aside.
• Since the Respondent is a non-existent party, no order is made as to costs.
• The Respondent's preliminary objections are overruled.
• The Applicants' preliminary objection is overruled.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (11)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.82
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules SI.71 Order 46 rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules SI.71 Order 46 rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules SI.71 Order 52 rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules SI.71 Order 52 rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules SI.71 Order 52 rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules SI.71 Order 6 rule 30
• Civil Procedure Rules SI.71 Order 8 rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules SI.71 Order 9 rule 1
• Evidence Act Cap 8 s.101

Cases cited (6)

• Makula International V. His Emminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another
• Jjunju Frank and Another v Zalwango Immy and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 2639 of 2023)
• Crown Converters Ltd v Hans Andersson Paper and Nor (Miscellaneous Application No. 468 of 2015)
• Sanyu v China Railway Group and Another (Civil Suit No. 11 of 2024)
• Re Nakivubo Chemist (U) Ltd HCB 12
• Byagamuhunda Vincent v Uganda Electricity Board (Civil Suit No. 0400 of 2007)

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