Twinomuriisa v Mugume (Miscellaneous Application No. 2127 of 2021)

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 dismissed an application to strike out a plaint and for security for costs. The court held that service of summons was validly effected when the defendant refused to endorse the summons personally and directed an employee to receive it. The plaint disclosed a cause of action based on an alleged right of way over the suit land, even though it did not establish proprietary rights in the land itself. The suit was not frivolous or vexatious, and the conditions for ordering security for costs were not satisfied.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Facts

The Applicant sought to strike out Civil Suit No. 837 of 2021 on grounds of non-service of summons, that the plaint was frivolous and vexatious and disclosed no cause of action, and alternatively sought security for costs of UGX 500,000,000. The Applicant claimed he only became aware of the suit on 27 October 2021 when his lawyers checked the Registry and found no affidavit of service. The Respondent's evidence was that the Applicant was served with summons at Raja Chambers Parliamentary Avenue in the presence of the Respondent. The process server deposed that the Applicant refused to sign and directed an employee, Nakidde Catherine, to receive the summons on his behalf. The underlying suit concerned land comprised in Folio 21, KCCA FRV 446, Upper Close Plot 12A at Naguru Kampala, which the Respondent alleged he used as an access road and from which he was blocked by the Defendants.

Issues

1. Whether the Respondent/Plaintiff's Civil Suit No. 837 of 2021 is incompetent and should be struck out for non-service of summons to file a defence as permitted by law.
2. Whether Civil Suit No. 837 of 2021 is frivolous, vexatious and discloses no cause of action against the Applicant.
3. Whether the Respondent should furnish security for costs.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (16)

• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 O.7 R.11(a)
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 O.6 RR.29
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 O.6 R.30
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 O.26 R.1
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 O.26 R.2(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 O.26 R.3
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 O.52 R.1
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 O.52 R.3
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.33
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 O.8 R.1(2)
• Interpretation Act Cap 3 s.34(1)(a)
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 O.5 R.1(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 O.5 R.16
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 O.5 R.14
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 O.7 R.11(e)

Cases cited (8)

• Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical African Bank (HCMA No. 333 of 2010)
• Kanyabwera v Tumwebaze [2005] 2 EA 86
• Olanya James v Ociti Tom & 3 Others (HCCA No. 0064 of 2017)
• Auto Garage and Others v Motokov (No. 3) (1971) EA 514
• The Alifar Keya [1938] EACA 18
• Kivanga Estate Ltd v National Bank of Kenya Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 217 of 2015)
• Anthony Namboro & Anor v Henry Kaala [1975] HCB 215
• G. M. Combined (U) Ltd v A. K. Detergents (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 34 of 1995)

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.

• Labu v Ocen and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2020)

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