New Vision Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd v Atek Lillian and Ojok Cosmos Otukene (Miscellaneous Application No. 013 2024)

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 struck out the application on the ground that the applicant, New Vision Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd, lacked locus standi to file the application or pursue an appeal, as it was not a designated party to the underlying defamation suit. The court held that an entity not party to trial proceedings cannot intervene as an appellant without first obtaining leave to be joined, added, or substituted as a party under Order 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal were also struck out as prematurely filed without the required leave to appeal.

Outcome

Application struck out for lack of locus standi; matter remitted to trial court

Facts

The applicant sought extension of time to seek leave to appeal and validation of a Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal from a ruling of the Chief Magistrate's Court, Pader, which had overruled a preliminary objection in a defamation suit. The underlying suit was filed by the respondents against six defendants, including The Manager of Uganda Radio Network, The Editor in Chief of Radio Rupiny, and others, but not against the applicant company. The applicant first emerged in the litigation when it filed the Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal in 2022, despite not being a party to the trial proceedings. The trial magistrate had clarified on the record that leave to appeal the interlocutory ruling had been sought but not granted. The applicant alleged that the trial magistrate had altered the court record, though it later conceded difficulties in obtaining the record caused delay in seeking leave to appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant had locus standi to file the application for extension of time and validation of appeal documents when it was not a party to the underlying suit.
2. Whether the Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal were prematurely filed without first obtaining leave to appeal from the High Court.

Orders

• Miscellaneous Application No. 013/2024 is hereby struck out.
• The Notice of Appeal and the Memorandum of Appeal vide Civil Appeal No. 088/2022 (now 051/2024) are both hereby struck out.
• The Applicant shall meet the costs of this Application.
• The file shall be returned to the Lower Court to conclude the Trial.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (10)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap. 71 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 44 Rules 1, 2, 3 & 4
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rules 1 & 3
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 19 Rule 3(1) & (2)
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 7 Rule 1(e)
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 1
• Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)
• Oaths Act Cap. 21
• Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act Cap. 6
• Law Revision Act Cap. 3

Cases cited (8)

• Sugga v Roadmaster Cycles (U) Ltd [2002] 1 EA 255
• Felix Onama v Uganda Argus Ltd [1968] EACA 10
• The Monitor Publications Ltd and Others v Pius Bigirimana (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 170 of 2022)
• The Red Pepper Publications Ltd and Another v Rtd. Chief Justice Samuel William Wako Wambuzi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 128 of 2017)
• Rhoda Kalema v William Pike (High Court Civil Suit No. 611 of 1993)
• Rtd. Justice Jeremiah Herbert Ntabgoba v The Editor in Chief of the New Vision Newspaper and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 113 of 2003)
• Komakech Geoffrey and Another v Rose Akol Okullo and 2 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 021 of 2010)
• AllMuss Properties (Uganda) Ltd and Others v CTM (Uganda) Ltd and Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 379 of 2017)

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