Wakilii

Ssentongo v Cooperative Bank ( In Liguidation ) and 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 53 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 260 · 2021 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for joinder of 6th respondent as party and leave to amend plaint in main suit HCCS No. 49 of 2014
Decision
Preliminary objections dismissed; application for joinder and leave to amend allowed to proceed

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 the delay in service of summons was caused by administrative processes of the court and should not be visited upon the applicant; the application was not incompetent. Held further that Section 124 of the Financial Institutions Act 2004 bars proceedings against the Central Bank only for acts done in good faith, and where fraud or negligence is alleged, the Bank must adduce evidence of good faith. The Bank of Uganda was properly joined as a party in its capacity as liquidator of the first respondent.

Outcome

Preliminary objections dismissed; application for joinder and leave to amend allowed to proceed

Facts

The applicant instituted a main suit (HCCS No. 49 of 2014) against five respondents seeking a declaration that the sale of his land was illegal. He sought to join Bank of Uganda as sixth respondent in its capacity as liquidator of the first respondent (Cooperative Bank in Liquidation), alleging negligence and fraud in the sale of his land. The summons for the application was endorsed by the Deputy Registrar on 18 August 2020 but was not served until 5 October 2020, outside the 21-day period prescribed by Order 5 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The sixth respondent raised two preliminary objections: that the application was incompetent for being served out of time, and that it was barred by Section 124 of the Financial Institutions Act 2004, which immunises the Central Bank from suits for acts done in good faith.

Issues

  1. Whether the application was competent having been served out of the time prescribed under Order 5 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the application to join Bank of Uganda as a party is barred in law under Section 124 of the Financial Institutions Act 2004.

Orders

  • First preliminary objection that the application is incompetent for being served out of time is overruled.
  • Second preliminary objection that the application is barred in law under Section 124 of the Financial Institutions Act 2004 is dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Summons — Extension of Time — Delay Caused by Court Administration
Where delay in service of summons beyond the 21-day period prescribed by Order 5 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules is caused by administrative processes of the court and not by the applicant, the court may exercise its discretion under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution to overlook the technicality and not punish the applicant for delays occasioned by the court.
Civil Procedure — Service of Summons — Meaning of 'Issue' under Order 5 Rule 1(2)
The term 'issue' in Order 5 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules means the date when the summons is endorsed by the Deputy Registrar or officer of court, not the date when the summons is physically handed over for service to the party.
Administrative Law — Financial Institutions — Immunity of Central Bank — Section 124 of Financial Institutions Act 2004
Section 124 of the Financial Institutions Act 2004 protects the Central Bank from suits only for acts done or intended to be done in good faith. Where fraud or negligence is alleged, it is not presumed that the acts were done in good faith; the Central Bank must adduce sufficient evidence that the acts in question were performed in good faith before the protection applies.
Banking & Finance — Liquidation — Capacity of Liquidator — Bank of Uganda as Liquidator
Under Section 100(1)(a) of the Financial Institutions Act 2004, a liquidator (including the Central Bank when acting as liquidator) may bring or defend any action in the name and on behalf of the financial institution under liquidation, and may sue or be sued in its capacity as liquidator.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (4)

  • Michael Mulo v Peter Katabalo (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6 of 2016)
  • Iron and Steel Wares Limited v C.W. Martyr and Company (1956) 23 EACA 175
  • Byaruhanga and Company Advocates v Uganda Development Bank (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
  • [2013] UGCommC 78

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssentongo v Cooperative Bank ( In Liguidation ) and 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 53 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 260 (29 January 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.