Wakilii

Nampala and 2 Others v Kimuli and 7 Others (Miscellaneous Application 92 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 248 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend plaint and add parties in ongoing civil suit arising from land dispute
Decision
Application for leave to amend plaint and add parties dismissed as futile given existing consent judgments

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 dismissed an application for leave to amend a plaint and add parties in a land dispute. The court overruled six preliminary objections raised by the respondents concerning service, authority to swear affidavits, cause of action, sealing of annexures, falsehoods, and abuse of process. However, the court found that the matters the applicants sought to introduce through amendment had already been resolved by consent judgments in a related suit, making the proposed amendment futile. The application was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.

Outcome

Application for leave to amend plaint and add parties dismissed as futile given existing consent judgments

Facts

The applicants sought leave to amend their plaint in Civil Suit No. 90 of 2019 and add the 7th and 8th respondents as defendants. The dispute concerned land comprised in Block 98 Plot 432. The applicants alleged fraud and unlawful transfer of the suit land from their names to the respondents. The respondents raised six preliminary objections and argued that the application was an abuse of process, noting that the applicants had filed multiple suits and applications concerning the same land, including Civil Suit No. 210 of 2020 which was later withdrawn. The respondents also pointed to Civil Suit No. 94 of 2017, which involved the same land and parties, and had been substantially concluded through three consent judgments. The parties sought to be added (Kaddu Christopher and the Commissioner Land Registration) were already parties in Civil Suit No. 94 of 2017. The applicants had also filed Miscellaneous Application No. 369 of 2022 seeking to set aside one of the consent judgments and consolidate the two suits, but this application had not yet been heard.

Issues

  1. Whether the Chamber Summons was served out of time after the summons had expired.
  2. Whether the Affidavit in Support of the Chamber Summons is defective for having been sworn without authority from the other Applicants.
  3. Whether the proposed amended plaint discloses no reasonable cause of action which makes the Application incompetent.
  4. Whether the annexures to the supporting Affidavits ought to be rejected for not having been sealed by the Commissioner for Oaths.
  5. Whether the Affidavit in Support of the Application is incurably defective for containing falsehoods.
  6. Whether the Application is an abuse of court process.
  7. Whether leave to amend the Plaint and to add parties should be granted to the Applicants.

Orders

  • Application for amendment dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Service of Chamber Summons — Time Limits
Where a chamber summons is filed and endorsed by the Deputy Registrar but not fixed for hearing until a later date when the trial judge sets a hearing date, time for service begins to run from the date the chamber summons is fixed for hearing by the trial judge, not from the date of filing.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Authority to Swear on Behalf of Others — Representative Actions
The lack of explicit written authorization for one party to swear an affidavit on behalf of co-applicants is not fatal to an application where the case is not a representative action and the relevant facts are within the common knowledge of all applicants.
Land & Property — Registered Land — Cause of Action — Fraud
A plaint alleging that registered proprietors obtained land through fraud and connivance discloses a reasonable cause of action, as registered proprietors can be impeached on grounds of fraud attributable to the transferee under Section 176(c) of the Registration of Titles Act.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Sealing of Annexures — Distinction Between Exhibits and Annexures
The failure to seal annexures to an affidavit with the seal of the Commissioner for Oaths does not render the affidavit defective, as the word 'exhibit' cannot be used interchangeably with 'annexure'; an exhibit is a document tendered in court during trial to prove a fact, while an annexure is a subordinate thing attached to a larger document that does not affect its importance.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Futility — Consent Judgments
Leave to amend a plaint will be refused where the proposed amendment seeks to introduce matters that have already been conclusively resolved by consent judgments in a related suit, as it would be futile to cause an amendment to include matters already determined by the court.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (11)

  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Obene (1990-1994) EA 88
  • Auto Garage v Motokov (1971) EA 519
  • Kampala Bottlers v Damanico (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Namboowa Rashida versus Bavekuno Mafuma Godfrey Kyeswa versus Electoral Commission EPA 69/2016
  • Uganda Corporation Creameries Ltd and Another versus Reamton Ltd CACA 1998
  • Bigways Construction Ltd v Trentyre (U) Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 832 of 2005)
  • Joseph Mulenga v Photo Focus (U) Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 308 of 1996)
  • Attorney General v James Kamoga & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Muchanga Investments Limited v Safaris Unlimited (Africa) Ltd & 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2002)
  • Mulowooza & Brothers Ltd v Shah & Co. Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
  • Nicholas Serunkuma Ssewagudde & 2 Others v Namasole Namusoke Namatovu Veronica (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1307 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nampala_and_2_Others_v_Kimuli_and_7_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_92_of_2023)_[2023]_UGHCLD_248_(13_April_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.