Wakilii

Paul Bagyenda and Others v Entebbe Minicipal Municipal Council and Another [2026] UGHC 663

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application by notice of motion in a pending civil suit seeking reference of the suit to a referee or expert
Decision
Application for reference to a referee dismissed; main suit to proceed to trial before the court with expert evidence admissible in the ordinary way

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 to refer a physical planning dispute to a special referee under sections 26 and 27 of the Judicature Act. The court held that reference requires two elements: the consent of all interested parties who are not under disability, and proof that the matter needs a prolonged examination of documents or a scientific or legal investigation that the court cannot conveniently conduct through its ordinary officers. Neither element was satisfied: the 2nd respondent opposed the reference, and the technical questions concerning compliance with the Physical Planning (Amendment) Act 2020 could be resolved through expert opinion evidence adduced at trial under sections 43 and 44 of the Evidence Act. Each party bore its own costs.

Outcome

Application for reference to a referee dismissed; main suit to proceed to trial before the court with expert evidence admissible in the ordinary way

Facts

The applicants sued Entebbe Municipal Council and Serena Heights Apartments Ltd, seeking declarations that the defendants breached physical planning and building regulations at Plot 5 Mirza Close, that the council approved the developer's physical plan without considering the plaintiffs' appeals or consulting stakeholders, that the proposed building's height and site coverage breached the regulations, plus general damages and costs. The defendants denied the claims, and the 2nd defendant counterclaimed for a declaration that the plaintiffs' conduct amounted to undue interference and sabotage of its investment. In the pending suit, the applicants applied for the matter to be referred to a referee or team of experts, supported by an affidavit from Dr. Koojo Charles Amooti, a physical planning practitioner, who deposed that the dispute involved complex technical standards, permits and assessments in physical planning, engineering and environmental management, and that the case was of national importance. The 2nd respondent opposed the application, contending that no issue required a referee, that the dispute concerned application of the Physical Planning Act and regulations, and that the applicants were free to call expert witnesses at trial.

Issues

  1. Whether Civil Suit No. 486 of 2024 (now Civil Suit No. 227 of 2025) could be referred to a referee to resolve technical issues of physical planning.
  2. What remedies, if any, were available to the applicants.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own legal costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Reference to a Referee — Conditions under Judicature Act ss.26 and 27
A court may order a reference or trial by a special or official referee only where all interested parties who are not under disability consent, and where the cause or matter requires a prolonged examination of documents or a scientific or legal investigation which cannot conveniently be conducted by the High Court through its ordinary officers.
Civil Procedure — Reference to a Referee — Requirement of Party Consent
Where one party expressly opposes the reference of a suit to a referee, the consent element required for a trial by referee is not satisfied and the reference cannot be ordered.
Evidence — Expert Opinion — Technical Issues Resolvable at Trial Rather Than by Reference
Technical questions of fact do not warrant a reference to a referee where they can be addressed by expert opinion evidence adduced at trial, since courts routinely evaluate expert opinions under sections 43 and 44 of the Evidence Act.
Environmental Law — Physical Planning — Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment and Right to Sue
Under section 2A of the Physical Planning (Amendment) Act 2020, every person has a right to a clean and healthy environment and may file a civil suit against any person whose act or omission has breached or is likely to breach a physical development plan or physical planning standards; whether such a breach has occurred is a question of both fact and law for the court.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion to Order Each Party to Bear Own Costs
Notwithstanding the general rule in section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act that costs follow the event, the court retains discretion to order each party to bear its own costs.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (1)

  • Ali Ahmad v Muhammad Ahmad (Civil Suit No. 38 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Paul Bagyenda and Others v Entebbe Minicipal Municipal Council and Another [2026] UGHC 663 (10 June 2026)
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.