Wakilii

Uganda Railways Corporation v Baluku and 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application 11 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 279 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to review and set aside a representative order granted by the Assistant Registrar in an underlying land suit
Decision
Representative order set aside; underlying suit to proceed with all 91 plaintiffs unless proper written authorization is filed under Order 1 rule 12(2)

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 registrar has no power to review his or her own decisions; only a judge has jurisdiction to review decisions of the High Court. Where multiple plaintiffs have already filed suit and wish to authorize some among them to represent the rest, the proper procedure is written authorization under Order 1 rule 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, not a representative order. The representative order granted by the Assistant Registrar was erroneous and set aside.

Outcome

Representative order set aside; underlying suit to proceed with all 91 plaintiffs unless proper written authorization is filed under Order 1 rule 12(2)

Facts

The respondents filed Civil Suit No. 040 of 2021 as 91 plaintiffs against the applicant. After filing the suit and the applicant's written statement of defence, the respondents applied for a representative order to allow six of them to represent all 91 plaintiffs. The Assistant Registrar granted the application on 17 March 2022 after the applicant was served but did not oppose it. The applicant brought this application over a year later seeking to set aside the representative order, contending it was irregular because the suit had already been filed and the proper procedure under Order 1 rule 12 had not been followed.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for review is proper before the High Court judge.
  2. Whether the representative order granted in Miscellaneous Application No. 107 of 2021 should be set aside.

Orders

  • The representative order issued by the Assistant Registrar in HCT-01-LD-CV-CS-0040 of 2021 is reviewed and set aside.
  • HCT-01-LD-CV-CS-0040 of 2021 shall be heard and determined on the merits as presented by the 91 plaintiffs.
  • Plaintiffs wishing to authorize others to represent them should follow the proper procedure under Order 1 rule 12(2) of the CPR.
  • HCT-01-LD-CV-CS-0040 of 2021 is fixed for mention on 10 July 2023.
  • Each party to bear own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Powers of Registrar — Review Jurisdiction
A registrar of the High Court has no power to review his or her own decisions. Unlike a judge who exercises the entire jurisdiction vested in the High Court, a registrar can only exercise such jurisdiction as is delegated by or under legislation. The power to review judgments or orders of the High Court, including those entered by the registrar, is not among the powers delegated to the registrar.
Civil Procedure — Review — Locus Standi — Aggrieved Party
An aggrieved party for purposes of review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act is a person who has suffered a legal grievance, meaning a person against whom judgment is given or whose interest is adversely affected by the judgment or order.
Civil Procedure — Representative Orders — Distinction from Written Authorization under Order 1 Rule 12
Where multiple plaintiffs have already instituted a suit and wish to authorize one or more among them to appear, plead, or act on behalf of the others, the proper procedure is written authorization under Order 1 rule 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, not a representative order. The authorization must be in writing, signed by the party giving it, and filed in court. A representative order is not required in such circumstances.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (6)

  • Attorney General v James Mark Kamoga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Uganda Freight Forwarders Association v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 22 of 2009)
  • Paul Kayima Vs. R Ruhoora (1982) HCB 33
  • Tarlogan Sing Vs. Jaspal Phaguda & others (1997-2001) 1 UCLR 308 at 410
  • Re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd [1979] HCB 12
  • Muhammed Bukenya Allibai v W.E Bukenya (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda_Railways_Corporation_v_Baluku_and_5_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_11_of_2023)_[2023]_UGHCLD_279_(8_June_2023)
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.