Wakilii

Wakibi Fred and Another v The Registered Trustees of Lugazi Diocese (Miscellaneous Application No. 396 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 785 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for consolidation of suits and amendment of pleadings arising from civil suit
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent

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 High Court dismissed an application seeking consolidation of a High Court suit with a Magistrate's Court suit and amendment of pleadings to include a counterclaim. The court held that consolidation requires two or more suits pending in the same court, but the Magistrate's Court suit had already been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court also held that the applicants failed to apply for enlargement of time to file a counterclaim and did not attach the proposed counterclaim for examination.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Facts

The applicants were defendants in High Court Civil Suit No. 121 of 2022 brought by the Registered Trustees of Lugazi Diocese concerning land comprised in Kyaggwe Block 110, Plot 1156. The respondent had previously filed Civil Suit No. 73 of 2016 in Mukono Magistrate's Court concerning the same land, which was dismissed on 7 July 2021 for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. The applicants sought to consolidate the two suits and amend their defence to include a counterclaim. The respondent opposed, arguing that the Magistrate's Court suit no longer existed and that the application was brought in bad faith. The applicants claimed they had not received proper payment for the sale of their matrimonial home and that the registration of the respondent on the title was tainted with fraud and illegality.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is properly before this court by bringing the application under the wrong law or procedure
  2. Whether swearing a supporting affidavit to an application without written authority is fatal
  3. Whether the Applicants have satisfied conditions for consolidation of High Court Civil Suit No. 121 of 2022 and Mukono Magistrate's Court Civil Suit No. 73 of 2016
  4. Whether the Applicants should be granted leave to amend their Written Statement of Defence to include a counter claim

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
  • Both preliminary objections overruled.
  • Prayer for consolidation of suits refused.
  • Prayer for amendment of Written Statement of Defence to include counterclaim refused.

Rules and key headnotes

Consolidation of Suits — Requirements
Consolidation of suits under Order 11 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires that two or more suits be pending in the same court and that the same or similar questions of law or fact are in issue in both suits.
Consolidation of Suits — Dismissed Suit Cannot Be Consolidated
Where a suit has been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, it ceases to exist and cannot be consolidated with a pending suit, as consolidation requires both suits to be pending at the time of the application.
Preliminary Objections — Wrong Citation of Law
Where an application omits to cite any law at all or cites the wrong law, but the jurisdiction to grant the order sought exists, the irregularity or omission can be ignored and the correct law inserted, provided the substance of the case is clear on the pleadings and the opposite party is not prejudiced.
Affidavits — Authority to Swear on Behalf of Another
A person is competent to swear an affidavit on matters or facts he knows about or on information he receives and believes. Where a deponent swears an affidavit in a representative capacity without written authority from the party he purports to represent, the affidavit is incompetent and defective as to that party.
Amendment of Pleadings — Counterclaim
A counterclaim should be filed with the Written Statement of Defence within 15 days from receipt of summons. Where it is not filed within that time, an application for enlargement of time under Order 51 rule 6 must be made after showing good or sufficient cause. Failure to apply for enlargement of time is fatal to an application to amend pleadings to include a counterclaim.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (21)

  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (1969) EA 696
  • Kasala Growers Cooperative Society v Kakooza and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2010)
  • Nanjibhi Prabhudas & Co. Ltd v Standard Bank Ltd [1968] EA
  • Gold Beverages (U) Limited v Muhangura and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 674 of 2019)
  • Saggu v Road Master UG. Ltd [2000] EA LR 255
  • M/s Bashasha & Co. Advocates v Tumwijukye Mpirirwe and 13 Others (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 70 of 2020)
  • Francis Wazarwahi Bwengye v Haki w. Bonera (HCT-00-CV-CA-0033-2009)
  • Alcon International Ltd v The New Vision Publishing and Printing Company Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2010)
  • Namutebi Matilda v Semmanda Simon and 2 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 430 of 2021)
  • Mukuye Steven and 106 Others v Madhivani Group Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0821 of 2013)
  • Joy Kaingana v Dabo Boubou [1986] HCB 59
  • Stumberg and Another v Potgieter (1970) EA 323
  • Teopista Kyebitama v Damiyano Batuma [1976] HCB 276
  • Mohan Musisi Kiwanuka v Asha Chand (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2002)
  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994) [1990-1994] 1 EA 88
  • Moss v Matings (1886) 33 CHD 603
  • Nambi v Bunyoro General Merchants [1974] HCB 124
  • GP Jani Properties v Dar-es-Salaam City Council [1966] EA 281
  • British India General Insurance Company Limited v GM Pharma and Company [1966] EA 172
  • David Acar v Acar Aciro [1982] HCB 60
  • Dr. Wasswa Joseph Matovu v Makerere University and 2 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Wakibi Fred and Another v The Registered Trustees of Lugazi Diocese (Miscellaneous Application No. 396 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 785 (27 August 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.