Wakilii

Tabaruka 10 Others v Middleton 4 Others [2024] UGRSB 8

Tribunal · 2024 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objection to application for leave to file fresh statutory declarations after original declarations were struck out
Decision
Applicants granted leave to file fresh statutory declarations; matter to proceed to hearing on the merits

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

The Registrar has discretion under section 288 of the Companies Act 2012 to determine the mode of evidence before the tribunal. A complaint does not become incompetent merely because it is unsupported by evidence at a particular stage, as the Registrar retains discretion to guide the mode of evidence presentation. Applying Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, which requires substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities, the Registrar granted the applicants leave to file fresh statutory declarations complying with the law. The preliminary objection was dismissed.

Outcome

Applicants granted leave to file fresh statutory declarations; matter to proceed to hearing on the merits

Facts

The applicants filed a company complaint before the Registrar of Companies. On 16 April 2024, the Registrar struck out the applicants' statutory declarations for being in contravention of the law. Counsel for the applicants then made an oral application for leave to file fresh statutory declarations that comply with the law. The respondents objected, raising a preliminary objection that there is no law or rule of procedure permitting a party to adduce replacement evidence after evidence has been struck out for illegality. The respondents argued that the Registrar had already directed evidence to be taken by statutory declaration and had no discretion to allow replacement evidence. The applicants argued that denying them the opportunity to file compliant evidence would be contrary to principles of natural justice and Article 126 of the Constitution.

Issues

  1. Whether there is any law or rule of procedure that permits a party who has presented evidence by way of statutory declaration to adduce replacement evidence after the original evidence has been struck out for illegality.
  2. Whether the Registrar of Companies has discretion to allow fresh statutory declarations to be filed after striking out non-compliant declarations.
  3. Whether granting leave to file fresh statutory declarations serves the ends of justice in the circumstances of the case.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection dismissed.
  • Applicants granted leave to file fresh statutory declarations complying with the law.
  • Applicants to file statutory declarations by 8 July 2024.
  • Matter set down for hearing on 12 July 2024 at 10:00 am.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Quasi-Judicial Functions — Registrar of Companies — Discretion in Taking Evidence
The Registrar of Companies exercises quasi-judicial functions and has discretion under section 288(1) of the Companies Act 2012 to determine the mode of evidence, whether by statutory declaration or viva voce, and is not estopped from exercising that discretion at any stage of the proceedings merely because one mode was initially chosen.
Civil Procedure — Evidence — Replacement of Struck-Out Evidence — Discretion of Tribunal
A complaint does not become incompetent before the Registrar of Companies merely because it is not supported by evidence at a particular stage, as the Registrar retains discretion to guide the mode of evidence presentation and may permit fresh evidence to be filed where the interests of justice so require.
Civil Procedure — Constitutional Principles — Article 126(2)(e) — Substantive Justice Without Undue Regard to Technicalities
Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution requires courts and tribunals to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities, but this does not wipe out rules of procedure; rather, it reflects the principle that rules of procedure are handmaidens to justice and should be applied with due regard to the circumstances of each case.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Denial of Hearing on Technical Grounds — Constitutional Considerations
It is improper to deny a party a hearing on technical or procedural grounds where doing so would defeat the ends of justice, and tribunals should readily apply Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution to ensure matters proceed to trial on merit unless they disclose no cause of action.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (12)

  • Bryan Xsabo Strategy Consultants (Uganda) Limited & 2 Others v Great Lakes Energy Company N.V. (Company Cause No. 13 of 2020)
  • Luitingh Lafras & Another v Special Services Ltd (High Court Company Cause No. 11 of 2019)
  • Saggu v Roadmaster Cycles (U) Ltd (2002) 1 EA 258
  • Theodore Ssekikubo & 3 Others v Attorney General & 4 Others (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Yona Kanyomozi v Motor Mart (U) Ltd(supra)
  • Sam Aniagyei Obeng & Another v MTL Real Properties Ltd & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 198 of 2011)
  • Mulindwa v Kasubika (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2014)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Semuyaba, Iga & Co. Advocates & Another v Attorney General of the Republic of South Sudan & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 0004 of 2022)
  • Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 52 of 1995)
  • Attorney General v Major General David Tinyefuza (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1996)
  • Col. Besigye Kiiza v Museveni Yoweri & Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tabaruka 10 Others v Middleton 4 Others 2024 UGRSB 8 (4 July 2024)
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.