Wakilii

Vijay Amritlal Kotech v Tabadhika Fauza Kalembe (Miscellaneous Application 298 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1530 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal, validation of notice of appeal filed out of time, quashing of taxed bill of costs, and stay of execution
Decision
Application struck out as incompetent and misconceived for being omnibus in nature

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 court held that the application was omnibus in nature, combining five distinct applications arising from separate proceedings before different judicial officers. Such a procedure is irregular and not sanctioned by the Civil Procedure Rules. The application was struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondent to be paid by the applicant's counsel who drafted it.

Outcome

Application struck out as incompetent and misconceived for being omnibus in nature

Facts

The applicant sought leave to appeal a ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 45 of 2023, validation of a notice of appeal filed out of time, quashing of a taxed bill of costs in Civil Suit No. 065 of 2022, and stay of execution in both the civil suit and the miscellaneous application. The applicant claimed the ruling was delivered on 5 September 2024 but a physical copy was only provided on 4 November 2024, causing delay in filing the notice of appeal. The respondent opposed the application on grounds that it was omnibus, filed out of time without seeking extension, did not disclose grounds for leave to appeal, and was a disguised appeal against a taxation ruling. The respondent also contended that costs were properly awarded and taxed, though there was a typographical error in the ruling referring to Civil Suit No. 10 of 2023 instead of Civil Suit No. 65 of 2022.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is competent having been brought omnibus seeking multiple distinct reliefs arising from separate proceedings.
  2. Whether the application for leave to appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit.
  3. Whether the grounds for leave to appeal disclose substantial questions of law meriting judicial consideration.

Orders

  • Application struck out as incompetent.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.
  • Costs to be paid by the advocate who drafted the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Omnibus Applications — Combining Distinct Reliefs from Separate Proceedings
An omnibus application that seeks multiple distinct reliefs arising from separate proceedings before different judicial officers is procedurally improper and incompetent where the reliefs are governed by different procedural rules and jurisdictions, as it causes confusion and offends the orderly conduct of proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Omnibus Applications — Permissible Combination of Reliefs
Combining prayers in one application is permissible where it promotes justice and avoids multiplicity of suits, provided the reliefs arise from the same transaction and are interrelated, but not where they stem from different causes or proceedings requiring separate determination.
Civil Procedure — Taxation Proceedings — Jurisdiction and Forum
Matters before the Deputy Registrar in his capacity as Taxing Master arise from a separate jurisdiction from substantive applications before the trial judge, and it is irregular to combine applications relating to taxation with substantive applications in an omnibus motion.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (15)

  • National Union of Clerical Commercial & Technical Employees v National Insurance Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Registered Trustees of Khoja v Sule Pharmacy (High Court Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2010)
  • All Muss Properties (U) Ltd & 2 Others v CTM (U) Ltd & 2 Others (Civil Application No. 379 of 2017)
  • Robert Kirunda v Jacquelyn Amoko & Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 239 of 2023)
  • Sango Bay Estates vs Dresdner Bank & Attorney General
  • Nakachwa Florence Obiocha v Dr. Medard Bitekyerezo (Miscellaneous Application No. 82 of 2021)
  • Akisoferi Ogola Vs Aliko Emmanuel Otheino & Anor (1998) VI KALRI
  • Matayo Okum vs. Francisco Amundhe & Other (1979) HCB 229
  • Herbert Sekandi t/a Land Order Developers v Crane Bank Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 44 of 2007)
  • Mugalula Mukiibi v Colline Hotel Ltd (Civil Suit No. 1077 of 1983)
  • Kaggwa v Law Development Centre & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 123 of 2014)
  • Makula International v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Another [1982] HCB 11
  • Nanyonga v Ntege [2000] EA 342
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol [1999] 2 EA 22
  • Kyambadde v Mpigi District Administration [1983] HCB 44

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Vijay Amritlal Kotech v Tabadhika Fauza Kalembe (Miscellaneous Application 298 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 1530 (11 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.