Proline Soccer Academy v Lawrence Mulindwa & 4 oers (HCT-00-CV-MA-0459-2009) (HCT-00-CV-MA-0459-2009)
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 the application for a temporary injunction and struck out both the interlocutory application and the main judicial review application. The court held that an unstamped and unregistered Memorandum of Understanding could not be admitted in evidence under the Stamps Act and therefore could not found a cause of action. Although the applicant demonstrated sufficient interest in the matter, it failed to disclose a legally protected right against the respondents because the purported assignment of rights from Nalubaale Football Club was not evidenced by a registered instrument. The decision of FUFA excluding Nalubaale Football Club from the league did not bind the applicant as a purported assignee.
Outcome
Application dismissed and main cause struck out for non-disclosure of a cause of action; leave to appeal granted
Facts
Proline Soccer Academy Ltd claimed to have taken over the rights and interests of Nalubaale Football Club in FUFA competitions under a Memorandum of Understanding dated 30 June 2009. FUFA had earlier decided to exclude Nalubaale Football Club from the National Super League 2009/2010 due to unpaid debts totaling Shs.38,560,000 owed to coaches and players for eight months. The applicant sought a temporary injunction to restrain FUFA and its officials from organizing the league without its participation and from conducting FUFA elections pending determination of a judicial review application challenging the exclusion decision. The National Super League was scheduled to commence on 19 September 2009. The respondents opposed the application on grounds including lack of locus standi, FUFA's lack of legal capacity as an unincorporated association, and the fact that the Memorandum of Understanding was neither stamped nor registered as required by law.
Issues
- Whether the applicant has locus standi to bring the application for judicial review
- Whether FUFA, as an unincorporated association, has capacity to sue or be sued
- Whether the procedure adopted by the applicant (Chamber Summons) is correct
- Whether service of summons was properly effected on the respondents
- Whether the applicant has disclosed a cause of action against the respondents
- Whether an unstamped and unregistered Memorandum of Understanding can be relied upon in evidence to found a cause of action
Orders
- Application for temporary injunction dismissed.
- Main judicial review application HCMA No. 142 of 2009 struck out for non-disclosure of a cause of action.
- Related application HCMA No. 0460-2009 struck out.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
- Leave to appeal granted.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009 SI No. 11 of 2009
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 O.41 rr.2(1), (2) and (9)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.7 r.11(a)
- Constitution of Uganda Art.126(2)(e)
- Judicature Act Cap.13 s.33
- Judicature Act s.36
- Judicature Act s.37
- Judicature Act s.38
- Judicature Act s.38(2)
- Stamps Act Cap.342 s.42
Cases cited (10)
- Kyamanywa Andrew K. Tumusiime v The IGG (HCT-00-CV-MA-0243-2008)
- Utex Industries v Attorney General (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1995)
- Nanjibhai Prabhudas & Co. Ltd vs Standard Bank Ltd [1968] EA 670
- Attorney General of the Gambia vs Njie [1961] 2 ALL ER 504
- John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council & Others (High Court Civil Application No. 353 of 2005)
- Boyes vs Gathure [1969] E. A. 385
- Jeraj Shariff & Co. vs Chotai Fancy Stores [1960] EA 374 at p. 375
- Yokoyada Kagwa vs Mary Kiwanuka & Anor [1979] HCB 23
- Kafeero vs Turyagyenda [1980] HCB 122
- Auto Garage & Others vs Motokov (No.3) [1971] EA 514
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.