Wakilii

Pearl Impex (U) Ltd & 2 Ors v Attorney General of Uganda & Anor (Civil Suit No. 3 of 2011)

High Court · [2011] UGCOMMC 205 · 2011 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by originating summons for statutory interpretation under Order 37 rules 6 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Decision
Application granted and matter fixed for hearing on the merits in chambers

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 while Order 37 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not directly provide for applications to interpret Acts of Parliament (the term 'written instrument' being construed ejusdem generis with deeds and wills), originating summons is nonetheless an appropriate procedure where facts are not in dispute and statutory interpretation is sought. The plaintiffs, as traders, have sufficient interest analogous to being aggrieved to seek enforcement of law governing foreign traders' licensing, based on the principle that any citizen may approach court to ensure public authorities do not transgress the law.

Outcome

Application granted and matter fixed for hearing on the merits in chambers

Facts

The plaintiffs, three Ugandan traders operating in Kampala, brought an application by originating summons seeking interpretation of section 10 of the Investment Code Act concerning the procedure for issuing entry permits and trading licences to foreign traders. They alleged that the Directorate of Immigration and Kampala City Council were issuing such permits and licences without the requisite certificate of remittance from Bank of Uganda as required by the Act. The plaintiffs asserted a business interest in ensuring foreign traders comply with statutory requirements. The defendants raised no preliminary objection on the merits but the court examined suo motu whether Order 37 rule 6 was the appropriate procedure and whether the plaintiffs had sufficient standing.

Issues

  1. Whether the term 'written instrument' in Order 37 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules includes Acts of Parliament and permits originating summons for direct interpretation of statutes.
  2. Whether the plaintiffs have sufficient interest to bring this application for statutory interpretation.
  3. Whether Order 37 rule 6 is the appropriate procedure for interpretation of the Investment Code Act provisions regarding entry permits and trading licences for foreign traders.
  4. Whether a foreign trader can validly be issued with an entry permit by the Directorate of Immigration without a certificate of remittance from Bank of Uganda in accordance with section 10(5)-(8) of the Investment Code Act.
  5. Whether a foreign trader can validly be issued with a trading licence by Kampala City Council without a certificate of remittance from Bank of Uganda in accordance with section 10(5)-(9) of the Investment Code Act.
  6. Whether entry permits and trading licences issued without the requisite certificate from Bank of Uganda are liable to cancellation.

Orders

  • The originating summons is issued.
  • The matter will be fixed for hearing in chambers.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Originating Summons — Scope of Order 37 Rule 6 — Interpretation of 'Written Instrument'
The term 'written instrument' in Order 37 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, read ejusdem generis with deeds and wills, does not directly encompass Acts of Parliament or statutory instruments, as the legislature would have used explicit terms such as 'Act of Parliament' or 'statutory instrument' if such interpretation were intended.
Civil Procedure — Originating Summons — Appropriate Procedure for Statutory Interpretation
Notwithstanding that Order 37 rule 6 does not directly provide for interpretation of Acts of Parliament, originating summons is an appropriate procedure for statutory interpretation where the facts are not in dispute and the matter involves construction of statutory provisions without requiring substantial evidence beyond affidavits.
Civil Procedure — Locus Standi — Sufficient Interest — Enforcement of Public Law
A trader has sufficient interest (locus standi) analogous to being aggrieved to seek court intervention for enforcement of statutory provisions governing licensing of foreign traders where the trader asserts that public authorities are not complying with statutory requirements, based on the constitutional principle that any citizen may move court to ensure public authorities do not transgress the law in a manner that affects citizens' rights.
Administrative Law — Locus Standi — Person Aggrieved — Enforcement of Statutory Duty
A person aggrieved means one who has suffered a legal grievance or been wrongfully deprived of something; a member of the public may approach court where a public authority is transgressing the law in a way that offends or injures citizens, and breach of statutory duty created for the benefit of a class is a tortious act entitling anyone who suffers special damage to seek redress.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (13)

  • Jaffer Ramji and Another v Abdu Hussein Jaffer (1957) EA 699
  • Makabugo v Francis Drake Serunjogi [1981] HCB 58
  • Kulsumbai Gulamhussein Jaffer Ramji and Another v Abdulhussein Jaffer Mohamad Rahim and Others [1957] EA 699
  • In Re Giles (1890) 43 Ch D 391
  • Mucheru v Mucheru [2000] 2 EA 455
  • Bhari v Khan [1965] EA 94
  • Kibutiri v Kibutiri [1982-88] 1 KAR 60
  • Re Old Wood Common Compensation Fund Arnett v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Others [1967] 2 All ER 1146
  • Re Nakivubo Chemists [1979] HCB 12
  • Ex parte Side Botham, In re Side Botham (1880) 14 Ch D 458
  • Attorney General v Independent Broadcasting Authority [1973] All ER 689
  • R v Greater London Council ex p Blackburn [1976] 1 WLR 550
  • Dawson v Bingley Urban Council [1911] 2 KB 149

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Pearl Impex (U) Ltd & 2 Ors v Attorney General of Uganda & Anor (Civil Suit No. 3 of 2011) [2011] UGCommC 205 (9 March 2011)
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.