Samuel Mubiru Kizito v Edward Sekabanja Kato T A Sekabanja & Co. Advocates (Miscellaneous Application 1844 of 2022)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

Court held that the applicant lacked locus standi to file the suit in his personal name as a holder of power of attorney. An agent acting under a power of attorney must sue in the principal's name, not his own. The applicant failed to attach the power of attorney document as required and incorrectly styled himself as plaintiff rather than suing through the principal entity. The main suit was struck out for being illegally commenced, with no cause of action disclosed. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Main suit struck out for lack of locus standi; application dismissed

Facts

The applicant claimed to be the registered attorney of M/s Shandong Industrial (U) Ltd, a plaintiff in an earlier land suit that resulted in a consent judgment requiring monthly USD payments. The respondent advocate had represented Shandong in that earlier suit and received monthly installments from the defendant, issuing corresponding cheques to the applicant. The respondent issued a cheque for USD $86,924 which was dishonored twice due to insufficient funds. The applicant filed suit in his personal name seeking payment. The respondent filed a written statement of defence out of time and raised a preliminary objection that the applicant lacked locus standi to sue in his personal capacity. The applicant referenced a power of attorney but failed to attach it to either the plaint or the supporting affidavit.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant had locus standi to file the main suit and this application in his own name as a holder of a power of attorney.
2. Whether the written statement of defence filed out of time should be struck out.
3. Whether an interlocutory judgment should be entered against the respondent.

Orders

• Main suit HCCS No. 480 of 2022 struck out.
• Application dismissed.
• No order as to costs in respect of both the main suit and the application.
• Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (13)

• Judicature Act s.17
• Judicature Act s.33
• Judicature Act s.39(2)
• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 r.8
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 r.10
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 r.30
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 8 r.1(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 8 r.19
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 r.6
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 50
• Bills of Exchange Act s.37(a)
• Bills of Exchange Act s.46(2)

Cases cited (3)

• Ayiguhugu & Co Advocates v Munyankindi Muteeri [1990-1992] KALR 80
• Fakrudin Vallibhai Kapasi & Anor v Kampala District Land Board & Anor (HCCS No. 570 of 2015)
• Ayiguhugu & Co Advocates v Munyankindi Mary Muteteri (1988-1990) 161

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Kercan v Britam Insurance Co. Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 8 of 2023)

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