Wakilii

The Registered Trustees of Kampala Archdiocese v Dirisa Mbasabire and Others (Civil Suit No. 120 of 2017)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1299 · 2025 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary point of law raised by 2nd to 9th defendants challenging the plaintiff's legal capacity to sue
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; suit to proceed to hearing on merits with substituted plaintiff name

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 a misnomer in the plaintiff's name does not render a suit a nullity where the intended party's identity is discernible from the pleadings and supporting documents. The discrepancy between 'The Registered Trustees of Kampala' in the title and 'The Registered Trustees of Kampala Archdiocese' in the body of pleadings and certificate of incorporation was a technical clerical error, not non-existence. Substitution under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Rules was appropriate where the suit was instituted through bona fide mistake and no prejudice arose to defendants who had consistently identified the correct plaintiff throughout eight years of proceedings.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; suit to proceed to hearing on merits with substituted plaintiff name

Facts

The plaintiff filed suit on 14 August 2017 seeking remedies for alleged trespass on land comprised in Butambala Block 121 Plot 107. The suit was filed in the name 'The Registered Trustees of Kampala' but all subsequent pleadings and the certificate of incorporation identified the plaintiff as 'The Registered Trustees of Kampala Archdiocese'. Defendants filed their written statement of defence on 28 March 2018 and an amended version on 23 May 2023. At hearing, the 2nd to 9th defendants raised a preliminary point of law challenging the plaintiff's legal capacity, alleging the named plaintiff was non-existent. The plaintiff produced a Certificate of Incorporation dated 17 August 1968 confirming registration as 'The Registered Trustees of Kampala Archdiocese' and a Certificate of Title vesting proprietorship in that exact name. Throughout eight years of proceedings, defendants consistently referred to the plaintiff as 'The Registered Trustees of Kampala Archdiocese' in all their pleadings and court documents.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff, as named, is a non-existent entity such that the suit is a nullity.
  2. Whether substitution/amendment under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Rules is appropriate.
  3. Whether the 2nd to 9th Defendants are entitled to costs.

Orders

  • The preliminary point of law is overruled.
  • The Plaintiff is substituted with 'The Registered Trustees of Kampala Archdiocese' as the proper Plaintiff in this suit.
  • The record shall reflect the substitution effective forthwith, without further application.
  • The suit shall proceed to hearing on merits.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Parties — Misnomer versus Non-Existence — Legal Capacity to Sue
A suit instituted by a non-existent plaintiff is a nullity, but a misnomer in the plaintiff's name does not render the suit a nullity where the intended party's identity is discernible from the pleadings, supporting documents, and the conduct of the parties.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Misnomer — Test for Identification
The test for whether a misdescription in the title is fatal is whether a person reading the plaint would be in no doubt as to the identity of the plaintiff or defendant. If the body of the plaint makes clear who the plaintiff is, a misdescription in the title is not fatal.
Civil Procedure — Substitution of Parties — Order 1 Rule 10 — Conditions for Substitution
Under Order 1 Rule 10(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may at any stage substitute a plaintiff where the suit was instituted through a bona fide mistake and it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute, provided no prejudice to the defendant arises.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Acquiescence — Delay in Raising Objection
Where defendants participate in proceedings for eight years and consistently identify the plaintiff by the correct name in all their pleadings and court documents, their subsequent challenge to the plaintiff's legal capacity on grounds of misnomer suggests acquiescence and undermines the assertion of non-existence.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (4)

  • Dynamic Consortium Ltd v Uganda Nurses, Midwives/NSG & Anor (HCT-00-32-CC-CS-0032 of 2017)
  • Trust Ventures Ltd v Power Foam (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 669 of 2017)
  • AC Yafeng Construction Ltd v The Registered Trustees of Living Word Assembly Church & Anor (MA No. 0001 of 2021)
  • Felix Onama v Uganda Argus Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1968)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

The Registered Trustees of Kampala Archdiocese v Dirisa Mbasabire and Others (Civil Suit No. 120 of 2017) [2025] UGHC 1299 (3 November 2025)
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.