Wakilii

S Mwijakubi and Ors v British American Tobacco Uganda Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 298 of 2005)

High Court · [2005] UGCOMMC 17 · 2005 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out representative action for alleged non-compliance with Civil Procedure Rules
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to respondents

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 to strike out representative action dismissed. A discrepancy between the number of persons stated in the court order granting permission for a representative action and the number in the published notice does not contravene Civil Procedure Rules Order 1 Rule 8, as the basis for permission is the common interest among the group, not exact figures.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to respondents

Facts

The applicant, British American Tobacco Uganda Ltd, sought to strike out a representative suit filed by the respondents on grounds that no permission was sought or granted for the plaintiffs to sue on behalf of persons listed in annexture B to the plaint, and that the court had not published notice of the suit. The respondents filed evidence showing court permission had been granted and notice published in the Monitor Newspaper on 30 March 2005. The applicant then argued that there was a discrepancy between the number of persons in the court order (2500) and the number in the published list (2838), contending this contravened Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether the representative suit should be struck out for failure to seek or obtain court permission for plaintiffs to sue on behalf of other persons.
  2. Whether the discrepancy between the number of persons in the court order (2500) and the published notice (2838) rendered the representative action invalid.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Representative Actions — Requirements for validity
A representative action under Civil Procedure Rules Order 1 Rule 8 is instituted to avoid multiplicity of legal proceedings where numerous individuals have interest in the same subject matter, and the basis of permission is the common interest among the group, not the exact number of persons represented.
Civil Procedure — Representative Actions — Discrepancy in numbers
A discrepancy between the number of persons stated in a court order granting permission for a representative action and the number in the published notice is not fatal to the representative action, as it is possible to bring an action on behalf of a fluctuating group of individuals.

Legislation cited (2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

S Mwijakubi and Ors v British American Tobacco Uganda Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 298 of 2005) [2005] UGCommC 17 (4 May 2005)
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.