Sowedi Masaba v Watera Jenipher and 7 Others (Civil Appeal 14 of 2005)

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

The High Court held that the tribunal correctly struck out the written statement of defence filed by Mt. Masaba Investments Ltd without leave, as the defence was not filed by the appellant SOWEDI MASABA. However, the tribunal erred in ordering ex-parte proceedings. Under Civil Procedure Rules Order IX rule 10, where a party fails to file a defence, the suit shall proceed as if that party had filed a defence, and the party must be served with hearing notice. The appeal was partly allowed to the extent of setting aside the ex-parte order.

Outcome

Matter remitted to tribunal to proceed as if appellant had filed defence

Facts

The respondents sued the appellant for trespass claiming he had occupied their land since October 2003. A written statement of defence dated 19/3/2004 was filed but signed by Mt. Masaba Investments Ltd as Respondent, not by the appellant SOWEDI MASABA. When the claim was called for hearing, respondents' counsel raised a preliminary objection that no proper defence had been filed by the appellant, and that Mt. Masaba Investments Ltd had filed a defence without leave, not being a party to the claim. The appellant's counsel argued that the wrong party had been sued, as the purchase agreement showed Mt. Masaba Investments Ltd was the purchaser and SOWEDI MASABA was only a witness. The tribunal upheld the preliminary objection, struck out the defence, entered interlocutory judgment in default, and ordered ex-parte proceedings.

Issues

1. Whether the written statement of defence filed was that of the appellant or of Mt. Masaba Investments Ltd
2. Whether the tribunal erred in disregarding the principle of corporate personality
3. Whether the tribunal erred in entering interlocutory judgment and ordering ex-parte proceedings
4. Whether the tribunal properly lifted the veil of incorporation
5. Whether the tribunal erred in awarding costs against the appellant

Orders

• Appeal partly allowed.
• Order of the tribunal authorizing ex-parte proceedings set aside.
• Substituted order that the trial shall proceed as if the respondent (SOWEDI MASABA) had filed a defence in terms of Order IX rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
• Appellant to have half of the costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Constitution of Uganda Article 126(e)
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.27
• Civil Procedure Rules Order IX rule 10
• Land Tribunals (Procedure) Rules SI 2002 No.33 rule 62

Cases cited (1)

• Kivamukuteesa Consumers v Sebugwawo [1986] HCB 61

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.

• Cengenge v Langoya (Misc Cause No. 2 of 2005)

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