Wakilii

Osuje Mohammed and Another v Likhari Jasbir Singh and Another (Miscellaneous Application 1089 of 2016)

High Court · [2017] UGCOMMC 301 · 2017 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objection raised in an application to add a party to a civil suit
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; application to proceed to hearing on merits

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 court held that Order 1 rule 12 CPR was not applicable where the first applicant swore an affidavit in his own capacity as applicant, not on behalf of the second applicant. Written authority under Order 1 rule 12 is required only in representative actions where one party seeks to act for another. The court possesses inherent power under Order 1 rules 10 and 13 CPR to add parties to a suit at any stage if necessary for complete adjudication. The preliminary objection was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; application to proceed to hearing on merits

Facts

The applicants brought an application under Order 1 rules 10(2) and 13 CPR to add Nimol Corporation DMCC as the second respondent to Civil Suit No. 173 of 2015. The applicants alleged that the first respondent was an employee of Nimol Corporation DMCC at the time the transaction in dispute took place. The first applicant swore an affidavit in support of the application. At the hearing, counsel for the first respondent raised a preliminary objection contending that the application was incompetent because the first applicant swore the affidavit without written authority from the second applicant, contrary to Order 1 rule 12 CPR. The respondent argued that this rendered the affidavit and the application incurably defective.

Issues

  1. Whether the application and the supporting affidavit is defective and incompetent in law contrary to Order 1 rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Orders

  • Preliminary objection dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the applicants.
  • The application (Miscellaneous Application No. 1089 of 2016) to be expeditiously set down for hearing on its merits.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Authority to Swear — Requirement of Written Authority under Order 1 Rule 12
Order 1 rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires written authority only where one party seeks to appear, plead, or act on behalf of another party in representative proceedings. Where an applicant swears an affidavit in his own capacity and not on behalf of a co-applicant, no written authority is required.
Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Court's Power under Order 1 Rules 10 and 13
The court possesses inherent power under Order 1 rules 10 and 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules to add or strike out parties at any stage of proceedings, with or without application by the parties, if such action is necessary to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.1 r.10(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.1 r.12
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.1 r.13
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.15 r.2

Cases cited (5)

  • Lena Nakalema Binaisa and 3 Others v Mucunguzi (Miscellaneous Application No. 460 of 2013)
  • Teremwa Kamishani, Vincent Kafeero and 11 Others v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 048 of 2012)
  • Mukuye and 5 Others v Madhvani Group Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 821 of 2013)
  • Makerere University v St. Mark Education and Others (Civil Suit No. 378 of 1993)
  • Nakalema and 3 Others v Mucunguzi Myers (Miscellaneous Application No. 460 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Osuje Mohammed and Another v Likhari Jasbir Singh and Another (Miscellaneous Application 1089 of 2016) [2017] UGCommC 301 (10 March 2017)
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.