Wakilii

Semanda Isima Moses v Airtel Uganda Ltd and Another (Miscellaneous Application 996 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGCOMMC 79 · 2021 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by defendant for leave to join third party in pending infringement suit
Decision
Leave granted to join Blu Flamingo Limited as third party to the main suit

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

Held that leave to issue a third party notice is granted where the defendant shows sufficient grounds, the subject matter between defendant and third party is the same as between plaintiff and defendant, the defendant claims indemnity or contribution from the third party, the plaintiff will not be prejudiced, and it is in the interest of justice. The court found all requirements satisfied based on the indemnity clause in the service contract between the defendant and the proposed third party.

Outcome

Leave granted to join Blu Flamingo Limited as third party to the main suit

Facts

The plaintiff sued Airtel Uganda Limited in HCCS No. 812 of 2020 for infringement of image rights, alleging that the defendant used his image in adverts for the Kabaka Birthday Run 2019 without authorization. The defendant filed a defence contending that it had contracted Blu Flamingo Limited on 30 August 2017 to provide digital marketing services, including designing adverts and promoting calendar events on social media. The service contract included an indemnity clause (clause 9) under which Blu Flamingo agreed to indemnify Airtel against any claims arising from negligent or willful acts in providing the services. The defendant claimed that Blu Flamingo was responsible for the impugned advert and applied for leave to join Blu Flamingo as a third party.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements under Order 1 rule 14 CPR for leave to issue a third party notice against Blu Flamingo Limited.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Leave granted to the defendant to issue a third party notice together with a copy of the plaint upon the respondent.
  • Third party notice to be effected within fourteen (14) days from the date of this ruling.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Third Party Proceedings — Requirements for Leave to Issue Third Party Notice
For leave to issue a third party notice under Order 1 rule 14 CPR to be granted, the applicant must satisfy five principles: (i) sufficient grounds exist to join the respondent as a third party; (ii) the subject matter between the applicant and respondent is the same as between plaintiff and defendant and the original cause of action is the same; (iii) the applicant claims indemnity or contribution from the respondent; (iv) the plaintiff will not suffer prejudice if the application is granted; and (v) it is in the interest of justice that the suit be heard on its merits.
Third Party Proceedings — Indemnity Claims — Contractual Right
A defendant has a direct right to indemnity justifying the joinder of a third party where that right arises expressly from contract, whether express or implied, and the contract covers the subject matter of the plaintiff's claim.
Indemnity Clauses — Scope and Effect
An indemnity clause in a service contract which provides that the service provider undertakes to indemnify the client against any third party claims, losses, or damage caused by the service provider, its employees or agents in the performance of the agreement, entitles the client to claim indemnity where a third party sues the client for breaches arising from the services rendered under that contract.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (4)

  • Sango Bay Estates v Dresdner Bank [1971] EA 307
  • NBS Television Ltd v Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (Miscellaneous Application No. 421 of 2012)
  • M/S Panyahululu Co. Ltd v M/S New Ocean Transporters Co. Ltd & Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 523 of 2006)
  • D.S.S Motors Ltd v Afri Tours and Travel Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 12 of 2003)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Semanda Isima Moses v Airtel Uganda Ltd and Another (Miscellaneous Application 996 of 2020) [2021] UGCommC 79 (19 August 2021)
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.