Wakilii

Patrick Kimbareeba v M/s Newlines Limited (Misc. Appl. No. 178 of 2000) (Misc. Appl. No. 178 of 2000)

High Court · [2000] UGHC 6 · 2000 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ex parte application by defendant for leave to issue third party notice arising from civil suit for breach of contract
Decision
Application dismissed

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

Application for leave to issue third party notice dismissed. The court held that no agency relationship existed between the defendant and the intended third party where the defendant hired the vehicle in its own right and subsequently hired it out to the US Embassy with no principal disclosed. Furthermore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant was based on breach of contract while the defendant's proposed claim against the third party was based on agency and indemnity, constituting different causes of action that cannot be reconciled under third party procedure.

Outcome

Application dismissed

Facts

The defendant hired a Toyota pickup from the plaintiff for five days in December 1998 at Shs 180,000 per day. The defendant had been requested by the US Embassy to provide a vehicle and hired the plaintiff's vehicle to fulfil this request, retaining Shs 80,000 as fees. While in the custody of the US Embassy, the vehicle was involved in an accident near Kotido and was damaged. The plaintiff sued the defendant for the pre-accident value of Shs 15,000,000, loss of earnings, and interest. The defendant applied ex parte for leave to issue a third party notice to the United States of America, contending it acted as agent and was entitled to indemnity.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant is entitled to leave to issue a third party notice to the United States of America.
  2. Whether an agency relationship existed between the defendant and the United States of America giving rise to a right of indemnity.
  3. Whether the causes of action in the main suit and the proposed third party claim are sufficiently connected to permit joinder under Order 1 rule 14.

Orders

  • Application for leave to issue third party notice dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Third Party Procedure — Requirements for Joinder — Same Subject Matter and Cause of Action
For a third party to be legally joined under third party procedure, the subject matter of the suit must be the same and the original cause of action must be the same. Where the plaintiff's claim is based on one cause of action and the defendant's claim against the intended third party is based on a different cause of action, the third party notice must be refused.
Third Party Procedure — Right to Indemnity Distinguished from Right to Damages
A right to indemnity as such arises from the original bargain between the parties and must generally arise from a contract expressed or implied. A right to damages arising from breach of contract is not a right to indemnity as such but is the converse of such a right, being an incident which the law attaches to the breach rather than a provision of the contract itself.
Agency — Undisclosed Principal — Requirements for Establishment
Where a defendant approaches a plaintiff in its own right to hire property and subsequently hires out that property to a third party, no agency relationship exists in the absence of disclosure of a principal at the time of the original transaction. The existence of agency cannot be established by the defendant's unilateral assertion where the plaintiff does not allude to any such relationship.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (2)

  • Yafesi Walusimbi v Attorney General [1959] EA 223
  • Birmingham and District Land Company v London and North Western Railway Company (1887) 34 Ch D 261

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Patrick Kimbareeba v M_s Newlines Limited (Misc. Appl. No. 178 of 2000) (Misc. Appl. No. 178 of 2000) [2000] UGHC 6 (29 February 2000)
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.