Yiga v Entebbe Municipal Council and 2 Ors (Miscellaneous Application No.207 2015)

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.

Holding

Held that a non-existent party with no legal capacity cannot be substituted under Order 1 rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires an existing party at law to be replaced. The 2nd respondent as named was struck out. However, the court allowed the applicant to amend proceedings to add Wakiso District Local Government Council as a defendant. The court clarified that the limitation period under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act is three years, not twelve months, as the twelve-month provision resulted from a law revision error never corrected.

Outcome

2nd respondent struck out; applicant granted leave to amend to add proper party; suit continues against 1st and 3rd respondents

Facts

The applicant brought a civil suit arising from a death claim under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. The deceased died on 4 March 2013, and the suit was filed on 25 June 2014. In the plaint, the applicant named the Chief Administrative Officer, Wakiso District Local Government as the second defendant. The applicant later sought to substitute this defendant with Wakiso District Local Government, claiming the original naming was inadvertent and improper. The 2nd respondent opposed, arguing that the Chief Administrative Officer is not a body corporate and substitution would defeat the defence of limitation.

Issues

1. Whether the Chief Administrative Officer, Wakiso District Local Government can be substituted with Wakiso District Local Government as the second defendant.
2. Whether a non-existent party can be substituted under Order 1 rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
3. Whether the proposed substitution would be barred by the limitation period under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap 79.
4. What is the correct limitation period for actions under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap 79.

Orders

• The suit against the 2nd respondent/defendant is struck out with costs.
• The applicant is allowed to amend the proceedings to add Wakiso District Local Government Council as a defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (11)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 1 rule 10(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 1 rule 10(4)
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 rules 1, 2, 3
• Local Governments Act Cap 243 s.6
• Local Governments Act Cap 243 s.6(1)
• Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap 79 s.6(3)
• Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap 72 s.3(1)
• Limitation Act Cap 80 s.3
• Limitation Act Cap 80 s.3(1)(d)
• Limitation Ordinance 1958 s.36

Cases cited (9)

• Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1998)
• Mulangira Ssimbwa v The Board of Trustees, Miracle Centre & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 576 of 2006)
• Mulowooza & Brothers Ltd v N.Shah & Co. Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
• Kampala City Council v Nuliati Nakyanzi (1974) HCB 190
• Velestom Onyom v Stephen Wekomba & Two Others (Civil Suit No. 34 of 1997)
• Komakech Charles v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 021 of 2001)
• Lydia Agnes Mujaju v Makerere University & Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 548 of 2001)
• Milburga v Women's Hospital International and Fertility Centre Ltd and 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 298 of 2011)
• Mohammad B. Kasasa v Jasphar Buyonga Sirasi Bwogi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2008)

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