FACULTY OF LAW

BACHELOR OF LAWS DEGREE PROGRAMME

LLB 411/ LLB WA 411 CIVIL PROCEDURE 1

SYLLABUS AND DETAILED COURSE GUIDE

Part 1: Course Description and Resources

Facilitator: Mr. Allen Yoboka

When to reach Facilitator on phone: Thursday 3:00pm- 5:00pm
Telephone: +256 781468524
Facilitator’s E-mail: [email protected]

Course Description

Civil procedure focuses on the litigation process through which parties enforce their legal
rights by going to court. Litigation is the traditional mechanism in a common law system f
or disposing of disputes under the supervision and control of elected or appointed judges
and subject to the coercive force of government. In civil procedure, we study the rules an
d norms that govern non-criminal cases, in which private individuals and government ma

Page 1
y be parties. Those rules are rooted in constitutional and other sources of law which struc
ture the course and effects of litigation, from the filing of the lawsuit to the entry of final
judgment and the determination of that judgment’s impact on the parties to the suit and
others.

This course will cover some of the most important aspects of the litigation process, includ
ing the determination of what court or courts have authority to dispose of, the cases pres
ented and what substantive rules of law are applicable. Along the way, an introduction to
the alternatives to this highly formalized mode of dispute resolution will be presented. Al
though these topics require attention to highly complex and detailed legal doctrine, at a
meta-level, they involve larger theoretical issues of the power and the legitimacy of court
s and the law that they apply. Just as important as the legal doctrine and theory that you
will study are the skills that you will develop, including legal analysis and argumentation a
nd the ability to think deeply and critically about how the law develops and changes.

MOOC-Supplement:

Week 6: Civil Procedure, ‘An Introduction to American Law’, MOOC offered by The
University of Pennsylvania on coursera available at:
https://www.coursera.org/learn/american-law#syllabus

Prerequisites

The student should have passed the Law of Evidence I and II (LLB 213, LLB 223) before

undertaking this course.

Online Resources:

Watch an introductory video on Civil Procedure Law:

Civil Procedure [18 Minutes]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xCE9MvFL-g&pbjreload=10

The video below may help you in developing some soft skills:
Emotional Intelligence: How Good Leaders Become Great -- UC Davis Executive
Leadership Program [33 Minutes] available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=HA15YZlF_kM

Page 2
Reading Materials
Ssekaana, M And Ssekaana S.N., : Civil Procedure and Practice in Uganda (LawAfrica
Publishing (K) Limited, 2018)

The Uganda Civil Justice Bench Book (Law Development Centre, 2016)

The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda

https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/0
Interpretation Act, Cap.3
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/3
The Judicature Act, Cap.13
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/13
The Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/statutory-instrument/2000/13-11
The Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/statutory-instrument/2000/13-10
The Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 71
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/71
The Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/statutory-instrument/1964/si-71-1
The Magistrates Courts Act, Cap. 13 as amended in 2007
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/act/2015/7-1
The Magistrates Courts (Magisterial Area) Instrument 2007
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/statutory-instrument/2007/45
The Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, Cap.79
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/79
The Civil Procedure (Judicial Review) Rules SI 75 of 2003
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/statutory-instrument/2003/200375
The Government Proceedings Act, Cap. 77
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/77
The Civil Procedure (Government Proceedings) Rules SI 77-1
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/77
The Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, Cap. 72
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/72
The Limitation Act, Cap. 80
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/80
The Evidence Act, Cap.6
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/6
The Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions Act)(Amendment of
Schedule 3) Order 2002
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/statutory-instrument/2002/200249
The Judgments Extension Act, Cap. 12
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/12

Page 3
The Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, Cap 9
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/9
The Local Council Courts Act No. 13 of 2006
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/act/2015/2006-22
The Advocates Act, Cap. 267
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/267
The Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations SI 267-2
http://www.uls.or.ug/about/rules/
The Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules SI 267-4
http://www.uls.or.ug/about/rules/
The Advocates (Taxation of Costs)(Appeals and References) Regulations SI 267-5
http://www.uls.or.ug/about/rules/
The Oaths Act, Cap. 19
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/19
The Statutory Declarations Act, Cap.22
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/22

Other Useful Websites

www.ugandaonlineLawlibrary.net/Judgments
www.nyuLawglobal.org/
www.saflii.org/
http://www.venables.co.uk/studentsresources.htm
www.Lawteacher.net
www.ukcle.ac.uk
www.Lawteacher.ac.uk
http://www.austlii.edu.au
http://www.worldlii.org
http://ulii.org

Summary of Requirements and Weekly Work

1. Attend at least 75% of all lectures scheduled for the Semester to ensure
eligibility for sitting end of term examinations.

2. Read all notes (or slides) for each week. Please do this week by week.

3. Listen to all videos that explain various weekly concepts or topics.

4. Complete all weekly readings

5. Do all 5 multiple choice QUESTIONS weekly. These weekly questions are aimed

Page 4
 at assessing your mastery of weekly concepts or topics (= 5% of final grade),
and are graded automatically by the Cavendish University Learning Platform,
known as CU-LP.

6. Sit ONE mid-semester Continuous-Assessment Test (CAT) (= 10% of final grade).

7. Answer SHORT essay questions that require WRITTEN ANSWERS to be

uploaded onto the CU-LP. Six of the ten weekly short essay questions will
comprise CAT 2 (=10% of final grade).

8. Participate in an intra- Faculty Moot Court Competition (= 5% of final grade)

9. Demonstrate use of Excel and PowerPoint by summarizing what you have

learnt in the course/module using Excel and/or PowerPoint and then
uploading. Your lecturer will give further guidance.

10. Work through the entire MOOC-supplement for this course (some CAT and final
exam questions will refer to material from MOOC whenever the course has a
MOOC). Some courses/modules may NOT have a supplementary MOOC

11. Sit an unseen written FINAL EXAMINATION at the end of the Trimester (=70%
of final grade)

12. Please note that your lecturer or facilitator may change some of these
requirements by alerting you in writing.

Part 2: Student Learning Outcomes

Specific Learning Outcomes:

By the end of this course, you should be able to:

1. Analyse the fundamental principles governing selection of the forum for suits (sub
ject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, venue, and pecuniary jurisdiction.
2. Outline and discuss service of process and waiver of process.
3. Analyse and evaluate the art of preparing pleadings.
4. Analyse, evaluate and apply general principles governing pleading a case and resp
onses to complaints, and amendment of pleadings.
5. Discuss the rules governing Discoveries, Interrogatories, and Inspection.
6. Evaluate and distinguish joining multiple claims and multiple parties to a lawsuit, i
ncluding counterclaims, cross-claims, third-party claims, and compulsory joinder.
7. Outline and discuss Motions to dismiss at the pleading stage.
8. Discuss the ethical restraints on submissions to court.

9. Analyse, evaluate and apply general principles of pre-trial conferences.

Page 5
 10. Apply the relevant statutes and procedural rules to reach the correct (or best) leg
al answers to hypothetical problems of civil litigation involving the areas set abov
e.

11. Use case law in the construction and presentation of well-structured, cohesive and
persuasive written and oral legal arguments for a legal audience;

12. Conduct legal research using a range of primary and secondary materials;

13. Identify relevant legal issues and apply relevant legal principles to generate
solutions to complex hypothetical and real-life problems in civil proceedings;

14. Embody professionalism and ethical behaviour in providing legal advice in an

academic environment.

Part 3: Weekly Topics and Assignments

WEEK 1:

TOPIC: COMMENCEMENT OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

SUBTOPICS:
- Introduction
- Sources of Civil Procedural law
- Preliminary Considerations before instituting Civil proceedings
- Meaning of a suit
- Notice of Intention to sue
- Statutory notice
- Exception to the rule on Statutory notice
- Payment of Court fees

Readings:

Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 71

https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/71

Rule 39 of the Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Cost Rules 267-4

https://businesslicences.go.ug/kcfinder/upload/files/advocates_remuneration_and_taxa
tion_of_costs_rules__19142-1.pdf

Preliminary Steps

Page 6
 Meaning of A suit: Section 2 Civil Procedure Act, Cap 71(“suit” means all civil
proceedings commenced in any manner prescribed).

 Notice of Intention to sue

 Rule 39 of the Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Cost Rules 267-4

 Statutory Notice
 Suits against government, local government and scheduled corporations

 Exceptions to the rule on Statutory Notice

 The Environment Action Network Limited(TEAN) V Attorney General & National Envi
ronment Management Authority Misc. Application No. 29/2011
https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/litigation/decisions/ug-20010828- the-en
vironmental-action-netwo

Payment of Court fees

 The Judicature (Court Fees, Fines and Deposits) Rules
 Order 9 rule 16 and Order 7 rule 11(c)
 Lawrence Muwanga V Steven Kyeyune SCCA No. 12/2001
https://ulii.org/node/15553
 Banco Arabe Espanol V Bank of Uganda CACA No. 42 of 1998
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/supreme-court/1999/1

Land Mark Cases:

 Kabandize and 20 Others V Kampala Capital City Authority Civil Appeal No. 28 of 201
1. Available at https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/court-appeal/2014/26

 Dr. Rwanyarare & Others V Attorney General HCMA No.85/1993. Available at : https:
//ulii.org/ug/judgment/constitutional-court/2004/5

Online Video:
What is a Civil Suit? [2 Minutes]
Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAtlyOlvkBk

Page 7
WEEK 2

TOPIC: CIVIL JURISDICTION

SUBTOPICS:
 Definition of Jurisdiction
 Sources of Jurisdiction
 Organisation and Hierarchy of Courts
 Civil jurisdiction of subordinate courts and courts of record in Uganda

Readings:
Ssekaana, M And Ssekaana S.N., : Civil Procedure and Practice in Uganda (LawAfrica
Publishing (K) Ltd., 2018), Chapter 1

Section 19 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 71

https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/71

Orders 4, 34, 37 and 38 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1

https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/statutory-instrument/2014/71-1

Cases:
Obbo v Onyango & Others (HCT-04-CV-CA-0130-2012) [2017] Available at : https://ulii.org
/ug/judgment/hc-family-division/2017/7

Mujib Juma v Adam Musa & Others (Civil Appeal NO. 0053 OF 2015) [2018] UGHCLD 27
Available at: https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/hc-land-division-uganda/2018/27-0

Online Video:
What is Civil Jurisdiction [2 Minutes]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS3bg3EY_aA

Types of Jurisdiction [4 Minutes]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5XffoFn-rQ

WEEK 3

TOPIC: MODES OF COMMENCEMENT OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

Page 8
SUBTOPICS:
 Plaint (Ordinary and Summary suit)
 Originating Summons (Company Causes, Interpleader)
 Notice of Motion
 Chamber Summons
 Petitions (Divorce Causes, Election Petitions, succession matters)

Readings:

Ssekaana, M And Ssekaana S.N., : Civil Procedure and Practice in Uganda (LawAfrica
Publishing (K) Ltd., 2018), Chapter 9.

Section 19 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 71

https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/71

Orders 4, 34, 37 and 38 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1

https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/statutory-instrument/2014/71-1

Cases
Kataramu v Maliya [1992] UGHC 18 (no action filed unless fees paid)
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/high-court/1992/18
Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] UGSC 1
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/supreme-court/1999/1

Land mark cases:

General Parts Ltd v NPART, SCCA No. 9 of 2005; [2006] 2 EA 57 (SCU)
Available at https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/supreme-court/2006/3

Pearl Impex (U) Ltd. & 2 Ors. Vs. The Attorney General Of Uganda (Civil Suit No 03 Of 201
1. Available at https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/commercial-court/2011/58

Online Videos:

Plaint, Petition, Suit, Affidavit: difference[7 Minutes but only watch till 3:59 Mins]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsERl4Jil9c

What is a Notice of Motion? [1 Minute]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biBTfHx3BpM

Page 9
WEEK 4

TOPIC: ISSUE & SERVICE OF SUMMONS

SUBTOPICS:
 Definition of Summons
 Purpose of Summons
 Documents to accompany Summons
 Modes of service of Summons
 Substituted Service
 Time of Service
 Affidavit of Service
 Expiry of Summons

Readings:

The Uganda Civil Justice Bench Book (Law Development Centre, 2016), Chapter 8.

Article 250(2) Constitution (proceedings against by or against Government to be

instituted by or against Attorney General)
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/0
Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 71 (when suit instituted service to be made
upon defendant to enter appearance and answer the claim)
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/71

Orders 5, 3rules 3,4 and 5, 29 rule 2, 30 rule 3, Order 37 rule 9 and Order 51 of the Civil P
rocedure Rules SI 71-1
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/statutory-instrument/2014/71-1

Cases
Nabanjala v Nabukalu [2016] UGHCFD 17
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/hc-family-division/2016/17
Lukwago v Attorney General & Anor [2013] UGHCCD 155
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/hc-civil-division-uganda/2013/155
Byarugaba v Kantarama [2020] UGHCCD 69
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/hc-civil-division-uganda/2020/69

Page 10
Kasirivu Atwooki & 3 Ors v Bamurangye Baroroza & 53 Ors (Civil Application No. 02 of 20
10) [2010] UGSC 25. https://ulii.or
g/ug/judgment/supreme-court/2010/25

Tweheyo v Barurengyera [2013] UGHCCD 103

https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/high-court-civil-division/2013/103
Online Videos:
Service of Summons [1 Minute]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAbjR4VI26s

Service of Summons for Certain Classes of Defendants [1 Minute]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSluZWucLtQ

WEEK 5

TOPIC: PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS

SUBTOPICS:
 Definition of a party to a suit
 Capacity to sue or be sued
 Natural persons
 Suit by Minors
 Unincorporated associations
 Mentally incompetent persons
 Partnerships
 Aliens
 Trustees
 Companies and statutory persons
 Deceased persons
 Government

Readings:

Ssekaana, M And Ssekaana S.N., : Civil Procedure and Practice in Uganda (LawAfrica
Publishing (K) Ltd., 2018), Chapter 2.

Section 59 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 71.

https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/71

Page 11
Orders 1, 29, 30, 31, 32 and Order 33 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/statutory-instrument/2014/71-1

Cases:
Byekwaso & Anor v Ndagire (Civil Appeal No 78 OF 2012) [2013] UGHCLD 69
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/high-court-land-division/2013/69

Gordon Sentiba and 2 Others vs Inspector of Government(Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2008)

Available at https://ulii.org/node/16145

Lukyamuzi James Vs. Akright Projects & Anatoli Kamugisha High Court Civil Suit No. 319 o
f 2002. Available at https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/commercial-court/2004/23

Mukuye Steven & 73 Ors v Madhvani Group Ltd [2013] UGHCLD 7

https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/high-court-land-division/2013/79

Zachary Olum &Another vs Attorney General Constitutional Petition No.6 of 1999

https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/constitutional-court-uganda/2000/3

Online video:

Parties to Litigation [2 Minutes]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c81H4d8ZBbc

WEEK 6: CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT TEST ONE (CAT I)

WEEK 7:

TOPIC: RERESENTATIVE ACTION

SUBTOPICS:
 Trustees
 Deceased persons
 Administrator
 Partnerships
 Unincorporated associations

Readings:

Page 12
Ssekaana, M And Ssekaana S.N., : Civil Procedure and Practice in Uganda (LawAfrica
Publishing (K) Ltd., 2018), Chapter 2.

Orders 1 rule 8, 31 and Order 7 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/statutory-instrument/2014/71-1

Cases

Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1964] QB 601

https://judgements.lawnigeria.com/2018/09/17/lewis-v-daily-telegraph-ltd/
Tumuhamye & Anor v Nakamya & Anor [2017] UGHCCD 126
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/hc-civil-division-uganda/2017/126
Land mark cases:

Byekwaso & Anor v Ndagire [2013] UGHCLD 69

Available at https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/high-court-land-division/2013/69

Makula International v Nsubuga [1982] HCB 85

Available at https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/supreme-court-uganda/1982/2

The Trustees of Rubaga Miracle Centre v Mulangira Ssimbwa & Mulangira Ssimbwa a.k.a
Afidra Milton v The Board of Trustees, Miracle Centre & Anor, Misc. App No 576 of 2006
& 655 of 2005.
Available at https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/high-court-uganda/2006/69

Online video:

Representative Plaintiff [4 Minutes]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXddRFbXvKg

WEEK 8

TOPIC: JOINDER OF PARTIES

SUBTOPICS:
 Who may be joined a party to a suit
 Joinder of plaintiffs and causes of action
 Joinder of defendants and causes of action
 Remedy for misjoinder

Page 13
Readings:

Ssekaana, M And Ssekaana S.N., : Civil Procedure and Practice in Uganda (LawAfrica
Publishing (K) Ltd., 2018), Chapter 2.

Order 1 rules 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1

https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/statutory-instrument/2014/71-1

Cases

Abdala v Agony [2017] UGHCFD 3

https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/hc-family-division/2017/3
MM Sheik Dawood v VG Keshwala and Sons [2015] UGCOMMC 33
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/commercial-court/2015/33
Makula International v Cardinal Nsubuga [1982] UGSC 2
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/supreme-court-uganda/1982/2
Electoral Commission v Sebuliba Mutumba & 2 Ors [2012] UGCA 20
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/court-appeal/2012/20
Kiwanyi v Lukenge & 2 others [2012] UGHCCD 39
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/high-court-civil-division/2013/39

Land mark cases:

Odama & 5 Others v The Registered Trustees of Arua Diocese (Miscellaneous Cause No. 0
017 OF 2017) [2017] UGHCLD 57. Available at https://ulii.org/ug/j
udgment/hc-land-division/2017/57

Andama & 3 Others v Anguyo & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 0018 of 2017) [2017]
UGHCCD 43.

Available at https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/hc-civil-division/2017/43

Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd [1999] UGSC 2

Page 14
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/supreme-court/1999/2

Online video:

Joinder of parties [7 Minutes]

Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aex_G7Vjy8E

WEEK 9:

TOPIC: THIRD PARTY PROCEEDINGS

SUBTOPICS:

 Definition
 The objects of third party proceedings
 Nature of third party proceedings
 Scope of third party proceedings
 Limitation on scope of third party proceeding

Readings:

Ssekaana, M And Ssekaana S.N., : Civil Procedure and Practice in Uganda (LawAfrica
Publishing (K) Ltd., 2018), Chapter 2.

Law Reform Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1953

https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/79

Order 1 rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1

https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/statutory-instrument/2014/71-1
Cases

Ladak Abdulla Muhammed Hussein v Griffiths Isingoma Kakiiza & others [1996] UGSC 6
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/supreme-court/1996/6

D.S.S. Motors Ltd v Afri Tours and Travels Ltd [2006] UGCOMMC 27
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/commercial-court/2006/27
NBS Television Ltd v Uganda Broadcasting Corporation [2012] UGCOMMC 131
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/commercial-court/2012/131

Land mark cases:

Page 15
Ssenfuka v Kakooza (2014) UGHCCD 51
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/high-court-civil-division/2015/51-1

In the matter of an application for leave to intervene as Amicus Curiae by Prof. Oloka Ony
ango & 8 Ors ( SC Civil Application No. 02 Of 2016) [2016] UGSC 2
Available at https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/supreme-court/2016/2
In the matter of an application for leave to intervene as Amicus Curiae by Foundation for
Human Rights Initiative & 7 Ors (Civil Application No. 03 of 2016) [2016]

Available at https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/supreme-court/2016/01

Online videos:

What is a third party complaint [2 Minutes]

Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQM_y_UeJ-A

WEEK 10:

TOPIC: PLEADINGS
SUBTOPICS:
 Definition of Pleadings
 Types of pleadings
 Functions of pleadings
 Rules of pleadings

Readings:

Ssekaana, M And Ssekaana S.N., : Civil Procedure and Practice in Uganda (LawAfrica
Publishing (K) Ltd., 2018), Chapter 7.

Order 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1

https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/statutory-instrument/2014/71-1

Cases:

Page 16
PLAINT

Order 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Owor & Anor v Ochwo & Anor [2017] UGHCLD 61
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/hc-land-division/2017/61
Letang v Copper [1965] 1 QB 232
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1964/5.html
Motohov v Auto Garage Ltd & Others Civ. Case 46-D-66; 19/2/71;
https://www.tanzanianweb.co.tz/2018/06/motohov-v-auto-garage-ltd-and-others.html

Written Statement of Defence

Order 8 Civil Procedure Rules
DFCU Ltd & Anor v Sam Mutongole [2012] UGCA 13
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/court-appeal/2012/13
Rama Makuza v Nakamya & 2 Ors [2013] UGHCLD 32
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/high-court-land-division/2013/32
Nampeera Trading Co. V Semwanje [1973] UGHC 1
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/high-court/1973/1

Reply and Departure

Order 6 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Barclays Bank (U) Ltd v Global Supplies Ltd & 3 Ors [2009] UGCOMMC 24
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/commercial-court/2009/24
Landmark cases:
Angella Katatumba v The Anti-Corruption Coalition Of Uganda (ACCU) (H.C.C.S No. 307 Of
2011).
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/commercial-court-uganda/2014/107
Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd [1995] UGHC 34
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/supreme-court/1993/1

Page 17
Nile Bank Ltd v Thomas Kato & Others,HCMA 1190 of1999
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/commercial-court/2000/5

Wekesa John Patrick v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 130 of 2008)
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/high-court/2008/50

ZTE Corporation v Uganda Telecom (HCCS NO 169 OF 2013) [2015]

https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/commercial-court/2015/80

Online videos:
Pleadings [2 Minutes]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHq28GGb0SE
Rule 6; Kinds of pleadings [5 Minutes]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgcMTq4pvQM

WEEK 11: CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT TEST TWO (CAT II)

WEEK 12

TOPIC: AMMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS

SUBTOPICS:
 When to amend pleadings?
 Amendment with leave of Court
 Amendment without leave of Court
 Reply to amendment
 Effect of amendment
 Unpleaded issues

Readings:
Ssekaana, M And Ssekaana S.N., : Civil Procedure and Practice in Uganda (LawAfrica
Publishing (K) Ltd., 2018), Chapter 7.

Order 6 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1

https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/statutory-instrument/2014/71-1

Cases

Page 18
Muwolooza & Brothers v N. Shah & Co. Ltd [2011] UGSC 11
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/supreme-court/2011/11

Tororo Cement Co. Ltd Vs Frokina International Ltd [2002] UGSC 24

https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/supreme-court/2002/24

Kalumba & Anor v Kakira Sugar Works [2014] UGHCLD 25

https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/high-court-land-division/2014/25

Lubowa & 4 Ors v Makerere University [2013] UGSC 8

https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/supreme-court/2013/8

Land mark cases:

Gunter Piber & Anor v E. Krall Investments (U) Ltd & 4 Ors [2008] UGHC 147
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/high-court/2008/147

Kafeero Sekitoleko Robert v Mugambe Joseph Kifomusana [2011] UGHC 70

https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/high-court/2011/70

Matagala Vicent v URA HCCMA 25 of 2013

https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/commercial-court/2013/104

Sebuhingiriza v Attorney General [2012] UGHC 249

https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/high-court-uganda/2012/249

Online videos:

What is an amended pleading?[1Minute]

Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktz7NNWADJA

Amendment of pleadings [8 Minutes]

Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj6rn5k_oPw

WEEK 13

TOPIC: CAUSE OF ACTION

Page 19
SUBTOPICS:
 Cause of Action defined
 Elements of a cause of action
 Joinder of Causes of action

Readings:
Ssekaana, M And Ssekaana S.N., : Civil Procedure and Practice in Uganda (LawAfrica
Publishing (K) Ltd., 2018), Chapter 3.

Order 4 rule 1, Order 7 rule 11(a), Order 2 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1
https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/statutory-instrument/2014/71-1

Cases
Fowler & Anor v Busingye [2013] UGHCCD 74
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/high-court-civil-division/2013/74

Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina [2002] UGSC 24

https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/supreme-court/2002/24
Namagembe Margaret V Serene Hotel Limited [2014] UGHCLD 144
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/hc-land-division-uganda/2014/144
Joinder of Causes of Action
Order 1 rules 2,5,6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Balera & 71 Ors v Attorney General & Anor [2018] UGHCCD 131
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/hc-civil-division-uganda/2018/131
Land mark cases;

Christopher Sebuliba v The Attorney General of Uganda ((Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1991)) [1
992] UGSC 6
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/supreme-court/1992/6

Mohan Musisi Kiwanuka v Asha Chand [2003] UGSC 2

https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/supreme-court/2003/27

Narottam Bhatia & Another v Boutique Shazimi Ltd [2010] UGSC 7 https://ulii.org/ug/jud
gment/supreme-court/2010/7

Uganda Aluminium Ltd V Restuta Twinomugisha C.A.No.22/2000

https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/supreme-court/2002/23

Page 20
Online video:

Cause of Action [2 Minutes]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEBnoPTdQmU

WEEK 14

TOPIC: CONSOLIDATION OF ACTIONS/TEST SUITS

SUBTOPICS:
 Definition of consolidation
 When Consolidation of suits may be ordered
 Purpose of Consolidation
 Refusal of Consolidation
 Test suits

Readings:

Ssekaana, M And Ssekaana S.N., : Civil Procedure and Practice in Uganda (LawAfrica
Publishing (K) Ltd., 2018), Chapter 6.

Order 11 and 29 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/statutory-instrument/2014/71-1

Cases:

Prince Balera & 7 Ors Vs Attorney .General & Anor [2019] UGHCCD 109
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/hc-civil-division-uganda/2019/109

Balera & 71 Ors v Attorney General & Anor [2018] UGHCCD 131
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/hc-civil-division-uganda/2018/131

Re Namubi and Juma (infants) [2014] UGHCFD 12

https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/high-court-family-division/2014/12

Land mark cases:

Benon Turyamureeba & 132 Others v The Attorney General & Anor [2008] UGHC 46
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/high-court/2008/46

Isam Fathal Rahman v Gulf Commodities (U)Ltd HCT–00–CC–MA-598–2012

https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/commercial-court/2012/156

Page 21
Online video:

Rule 31; Consolidation or Severance; Civil Procedure [1 Minute]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRVJJWIL6qk&list=PLn-OnjEJXMAs_utN2O2HSGFg06
OS2Q2hP&index=32&t=0s

WEEK 15

TOPIC: LIMITATION OF ACTIONS

SUBTOPICS:
 Introduction
 Purposes of statutes of limitation
 Basic principles limitation
 Effect of limitation period on a suit
 Defences to limitation

Readings:
Ssekaana, M And Ssekaana S.N., : Civil Procedure and Practice in Uganda (LawAfrica
Publishing (K) Ltd., 2018), Chapter 4

Legislation:

Limitation Act, Cap. 80

https://ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/80

Cases

Bernard Tumuhimbise V Attorney General &Uganda Wildlife Authority

https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/high-court-civil-division/2013/128

Madhvani International v Attorney General (Civil Appeal NO. 23 OF 2010) [2012] UGSC 14
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/supreme-court/2012/14

Mohammad B. Kasasa V Jasphar Buyonga Sirasi Bwogi [2009] UGCA 44

https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/court-appeal/2009/44

Page 22
Peter Mangeni v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board [1998] UGSC 26
https://ulii.org/ug/judgment/supreme-court-uganda/1998/26

Online video:
What is statute of Limitations? What does statute of Limitations mean? [3 Minutes]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zGS-Ys-R6Q&t=22s

Jurisdiction and Limitation of Actions [22 Minutes, students advised to watch from the 1
7th minute]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_-qBWw5-xo

FINAL EXAMINATION

Grading Policy

Graded Coursework (or CATs), Problem sets (or assignments), Moots and examinations

ASSESSMENT COMMENTS %
Weekly Multiple-Choice Questions 5
MIDTERM Assessment Continuous Assessment Test One CAT 1 10
Weekly Problems (written) 6 out of 10 assignments will comprise 10
CAT 2
Participation in Intra-Faculty Moot Court competition 5
FINAL EXAM 70
TOTAL POINTS Out of 100% Add all points 100

Letter Grades
Grades Percentage Performance
A 80-100 Excellent Work
B+ 75-79 Very Good Work
B 70-74 Good Work

Page 23
 Grades Percentage Performance
C+ 65-69 Above Average Work
C 60-64 Average Work
D+ 55-59 Below Average Work
D 50-54 Poor Work
F 0-49 Failing Work

Part 3: Course Policies

Class Attendance, Participation and Emergencies

1. Attending classes is mandatory for all students.

2. Participation in group work or teamwork is required whenever such work is assigned.

3. In case of any emergency that dis enables a student from attending classes or
completing work, the student is expected to communicate with the lecturer or dean as
soon as possible.
4. Students with disabilities should inform the dean of the faculty of any special needs
that they may have.

Late Work and Missing Assessments

1. Each student is responsible for making sure that his or her work is done on time.
2. Any student who misses assessments or misses class should talk to his or her lecturer
or professor as soon as possible and seek the lecturer’s advice on how to make up for
work missed or assessments missed.
3. Students who expect to miss classes or to miss assessments for health reasons or
special family reasons should communicate with the lecturer or professor for the course
as soon as possible.
4. Students should note that there may be a penalty for late work, and missed
assessments. The penalty may include not being allowed to sit for the final examination.
5. Students who are unable to keep up with class work should consult with the course
lecturer or faculty dean or dean of students, and seek advice.

Integrity and Zero Tolerance for Plagiarism

1. All students are expected to abide by the university’s policy on ethical conduct.

2. Any student involved in cheating in tests, coursework or examinations will be

Page 24
suspended pending investigations, and may be expelled from the University.

3. Any student involved in buying or selling tests or examinations will be suspended from
the University pending investigations.

4. Any student involved in using sexual favors in exchange for marks will be suspended
pending investigations, and may be expelled from the University.

5. Plagiarism means presenting other people’s work from online or from other sources as
your own. Plagiarism is a serious offence and will not be tolerated, and offenders will fail
that particular course.

6. Students are required to read the University’s policy on examinations.

Make up of Missed Classes

1. There will be special make up classes for each class that is missed because the lecturer
could not come to class on a particular day.

2. Students are required to treat make up classes as part of the regular learning program.

Minors

A minor or person of unsound mind cannot sue or be sued in their own name. Instead,
legal proceedings involving minors must be instituted through a next friend or guardian.
The next friend must execute an authority consenting to the use of their name on behalf of
the minor, as seen in Thomas Makumbi (through next friend Patrick) v Josephine
Katumba (Misc. App. No. 316 of 2014). Similarly, in the case of persons of unsound mind,
legal actions can only be instituted by a legally authorized representative to ensure the
individual’s interests are protected.

In general, subject to special rules of procedure, a minor may sue or be sued but he may
not in person assert his rights in a court of law as the plaintiff or applicant nor make
himself liable as a defendant or respondent for costs. In order to sue or be sued, the minor
must follow the procedure set out in Order 32 

Who is a minor?; Kiddu Musisi Vs Iyamulemye and Another [1965] HCD 87; Since the
word minor is not anywhere defined in order 29, the court applied common law and
interpreted the word minor as being a person who has not attained the age of 21[ See
Article 31 of the constitution on age of majority and Article of 274 on interpretation of
existing laws.] A minor is a person under the age of 18.

Page 25
A suit can only be sustained by a minor where the cause of action accrues to such a minor.
Abdul Sengooba v Stanbic Bank, in this case the fourth and fifth plaintiffs were minor
children suing through their father Haji Suleiman Lule. It was found that the said minors
did not actually sign the disputed agreement and so the principles as to minors9 contracts
would not apply to them. The contractual obligations did not fall on the minors but rather
their father. Court thus held that that the minors had no cause of action  Under O.32 r1.
A suit can only be commenced in the names of a minor through the next friend of a minor.

Consent of the Guardian – O 32 R 4(3): No person shall be appointed as a guardian ad

litem without his consent. Therefore it is a requirement that the next friend of a minor
must execute an authority consenting to the use of his or her name in the suit as a next
friend.

Kabatoro Vs Namatovu (1975) HCB 159; A plaint was instituted by a minor without a
next friend as required by law. Held; that Order 32 r 3 is mandatory and requires that a suit
brought/instituted by a minor without attaching a next friend9s authority is incompetent
and should be struck out. When a suit is instituted by a minor without a next friend, the
plaint is to be taken off the file.

The authority of the next friend must be filed together with the plaint.

 Person capable of being next friend: Any adult person of sound mind within the
jurisdiction whose interest is not adverse to that of the minor or is not a defendant or
plaintiff in the case involving the minor may be eligible to act as a next friend.

Legal effect of absence of a next friend:, O. 32 r 2: if a minor is made a plaintiff without a

next friend, the proceedings may be set aside and the plaintiff9s solicitors may be ordered
to pay costs to the defendant in that suit. This principle too applies when the minor is
made a co-plaintiff without a next friend other wise the minor9s solicitors may be ordered
to pay the defendant the costs accessioned by the misjoinder.

 Geihuge V Gibbs [1897] ICH 479. This was an action instituted in court without the
knowledge of the solicitors that a person joined as co-plaintiff was a minor at the
commencement of the suit. Held: That when an action is brought in the name of the
person as plaintiff without his authority and he subsequently repudiates the action, the
defendant on an application may obtain an order for payment of costs by the solicitor who
instituted the suit. In a case where an infant was joined as a co-plaintiff by solicitors on
assumption that he was of full age, they were liable to pay the costs of the suit when the
minor applied for his name to be struck out.

 Hajji Sabiti Musoke Vs Uganda L.M [1978] HCB 129. During the trial it came out that
the 3rd Plaintiff was a minor and counsel for the defendant applied that the suit be taken
out of the file under O 32, r1. Held: That the proceedings were irregular and could only
continue if the plaint was amended to include the next friend. A plaint by a minor without
authority of the next friend is improper and must be taken off the file but can be re-filed in
accordance with the law.

Page 26
Kabatoro Vs Namatovu (1975) HCB 159; A plaint instituted by a minor without a next
friend as required by law. Held; that Order 32 r 3 is mandatory and requires that a suit
brought/instituted by a minor without attaching a next friend9s authority is incompetent
and should be struck out. When a suit is instituted by a minor without a next friend, the
plaint is to be taken off the file.

 Effect of non-compliance, whether it render the suit liable to be dismissed: Rules 1 and
2 of O 32 are only directory and not mandatory and non-compliance with them does not
automatically lead to the throwing out of the suit. Court has discretion under r 2(1) to
either take the plaintiff off the file or make such other order in the premises as it may
deem fit e.g. amendment to include the next friend.

Hajji Sabiti Musoke Vs Uganda L.M [1978] HCB 129. During the trial it came out that the
3rd Plaintiff was a minor and counsel for the defendant applied that the suit be taken out
of the file under O 32, r1. Held: That the proceedings were irregular and could only
continue if the plaint was amended to include the next friend. A plaint by a minor without
authority of the next friend is improper and must be taken off the file but can be re-filed in
accordance with the law.

Guardian ad Litem; When the defendant is a minor court shall appoint a guardian Ad
litem. The rule is mandatory and a decree obtained without the appointment of a guardian
is a nullity.

Credit Finance Corporation Ltd v Mahendi Abdulla Karmali [1965] 1 EA 545

In 1959, the plaintiff sued the defendant on a hire purchase agreement when he was a
minor and obtained judgment in default of his filing a defence. Since obtaining judgment
several execution applications were made for enforcing the judgment but no process for
attachment of the defendant9s property or person was actually executed. In 1965 the
defendant applied for setting aside the judgment on the ground that the defendant was a
minor when the suit was filed and that no guardian ad litem had been appointed as
required by law;

Whether decree a nullity.

Held; without a qualified guardian ad litem a minor cannot become a party to a suit and
any

decree obtained ex parte without such an appointment is a nullity

 Kiddu Musisi Vs Iyamulemye and Another [1965] HCD 87.; Held: All suits brought
against a minor must be through a guardian ad litem i.e. a guardian appointed by court for
the purpose of the suit.

Government

Page 27
The Government of Uganda, like many governments, has specific rules governing its
capacity to be sued. All suits brought by or against the government must be filed in the
name of the Attorney General, as provided for by Sections 9 and 10 of the Government
Proceedings Act 1954. In Charles Harry Twagira v Attorney General and Two Others
[2008] UGSC 10, the court affirmed the requirement that the Attorney General is the
proper party in any legal proceedings involving the government.

The government can be sued for direct actions or for actions and omissions committed by
its servants or agents. This principle was highlighted in Wakiso Cargo Transporters Ltd v
Wakiso District Council & AG (HCT 00-CCCS 070/2004), where a government body was
held accountable for actions performed by its representatives.

All suits in the names of or against the government of Uganda must be brought by or
against the Attorney General. S.9 and 10 of the Government Proceedings Act

In Charles Harry Twagira V AG.& DPP, the appellant sued both the Attorney General and
the DPP. Held; that the appellant should have proceeded only against the Attorney
General and the third respondent. The Director of Public Prosecutions is a government
department but it is not a body corporate with powers to sue or be sued.

Under Article 250(1)1, it is stipulated that “where a person has a claim against the
government, that claim may be enforced as a right by the proceedings taken against the
government for that person.”

Article 250(2) of the Constitution provides: Civil proceedings by or against the

Government shall be instituted by or against the Attorney General; and all documents
required to be served on the Government for the purpose of or in connection with those
proceedings, shall be served on the Attorney General. That Therefore a civil suit against
the Director of Public Prosecution cannot be sustained and it is incompetent.

The same equally applies to the case against the 3rd respondent. He is the police officer
who was sent to London to re-arrest the appellant and escort him to Uganda. He is the one
who made the investigations and applications under the law that led to the detention and
freezing of the appellant9s accounts. He was at all times acting as an employee of the
government. The government may be sued for direct actions or for actions or omissions of
its servants or agents.

In Wakiso Cargo Transporters Ltd V Wakiso District Council & AG HCT 00-CCCS
070/2004; The attorney General could not be held liable for breach of a contract executed
by the district as the district had a separate legal existence from the central government.

Yustus Tinkasimire and others v AG and Dr, Malinga; held; minister not personally liable)
Stanbic Bank and others v Hassan Bassajabalaba and Others Justice Obura, on whether
Bank of Uganda can sue to recover money due to Uganda. Held; only Attorney General is
one who can sue and cannot delegate

Page 28
Where attorney General is sued, representation in court must be by Attorney General or a
state attorney attached to the Attorney General9s chambers. Sinba K Ltd v UBC, justice
Okello..AG appeared for Sinba, judge disagreed. AG and Peter Nyombi v Uganda Law
Society.. AG hired a law firm, court ruled the firm couldn9t represent AG.

Section7 provides that all civil proceedings by or against the Government in the High
Court shall be instituted and proceeded with in accordance with rules of court and not
otherwise. There are however, a few exceptions which are mainly contained in Civil
Procedure and Limitation Act (miscellaneous provision Act).

Suits against the government are brought against the AG under article 119 of the
Constitution. It provides that the Attorney General shall represent government in courts or
any other legal proceeding in which government is a party. Section 103 states that civil
proceedings against the government shall be instituted against the attorney general who
represents the government in legal proceedings.

Section 11 further requires that all documents required to be served on the Government for
the purpose of or in connection with any civil proceedings by or against the Government
shall be served on the Attorney General.

Government can also be sued under tort: A tort is a civil wrong which entitles the victim a
redress by way of damages, under section 3 of the Act7, the Government is subject to all
those liabilities in tort to which if it is a private person of full age and capacity and goes on
to give the circumstances in which it will be liable.

The instant case is that of Muwonge Vs. Attorney General8, policemen who were sent to
quell a riot wantonly shot in the houses of innocent people. As a result, the people were
killed. It was held that the government was liable for the actions of policemen because
they were carrying out their duties albeit in a manner which was not authorized.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS BEFORE INSTITUTING A SUIT

Payment of Court Fees

Once the decision is made to file a lawsuit, court fees must be paid. These
fees vary depending on the type of case and the court in which the action is
filed. According to the Judicature (Court Fees, Fines, and Deposits)
Rules, SI 13-3, fees must be paid spontaneously before filing any court
processes.

The case of Unta Exports v Customs [1970] EA 648 highlights the

importance of paying court fees promptly, ensuring the proper
commencement of legal proceedings.

Identifying a Triable Issue

Page 29
One of the key preliminary considerations is determining whether the case
presents a triable issue, meaning there is a legitimate legal grievance that
warrants court intervention. The plaintiff must assess whether the wrong they
are claiming is one for which the law provides a remedy. Without a valid claim,
the case risks being dismissed at an early stage.

For instance, in a case of breach of contract, the plaintiff must demonstrate

that the defendant failed to fulfill their contractual obligations, and that this
failure resulted in harm or loss.

5. Jurisdiction

Before filing a lawsuit, the plaintiff must confirm which court has jurisdiction
over the case. Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear and decide
a case. It is typically determined by the location where the cause of action
arose or by the subject matter of the dispute.

Filing a case in the wrong court can lead to unnecessary delays, as the case
may be dismissed, and the plaintiff will have to start over in the correct court.
For example, if the cause of action occurred in Kampala, it would be
inappropriate to file the case in a court with no authority over that region.

6. Locus Standi

A plaintiff must ensure they have locus standi, which means they have the
legal standing or right to bring the lawsuit. The plaintiff must have a direct and
tangible interest in the matter at hand. If they lack locus standi, the case may
be dismissed.

In addition, the plaintiff must ensure that the defendant is the correct party to
be sued. For example, in a case involving a property dispute, the plaintiff must
ensure they are suing the correct owner of the property and not a third party
with no direct connection to the dispute.

7. Proper Defendants and Specific Claims

Another essential consideration is identifying the correct defendants and

ensuring that the claims made against each of them are clear and specific.
Misidentifying parties or filing unclear claims can result in delays or dismissal
of the case. The plaintiff must name the correct parties involved in the legal
dispute and ensure the claims made against them are justified.

For instance, in a multi-party construction dispute, the plaintiff must ensure

that the contractor, subcontractor, and architect are all appropriately named,
depending on their involvement in the alleged breach.

Service of Notice of Intention to Sue and Statutory Notices

Page 30
For actions against government entities or scheduled corporations, there is a
requirement to serve a statutory notice, as provided under Section 2 of
the Civil Procedure (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, Cap. 72. This notice
allows the government or corporation time to investigate the claim before
deciding whether to settle or defend the action.

Failure to serve the statutory notice does not invalidate the proceedings.
However, it may lead to delays or the plaintiff being denied costs, as the
statutory defendant may need more time to investigate the matter before
filing a defence. This was established in the case of Kampala Capital City
Authority v Kabandize & 10 Ors (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 013 OF 2014)
[2017] UGSC 44.

MODES OF COMMENCEMENT OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

Petition

A petition is another mode of commencing civil proceedings, particularly in

cases where the procedure is explicitly prescribed by statute or statutory
instrument. Petitions are used in specific legal matters, such as those related
to constitutional law, company law, matrimonial issues, and election
challenges. Each type of petition is governed by its own legal framework.

Timing of Service

Service of summons should take place within regular working hours—typically

before 6 p.m. on weekdays and before 1 p.m. on Saturdays. If service occurs
after these specified hours, it will be considered to have been effected on the
following day. This rule helps ensure that the defendant has a reasonable
opportunity to respond and that the process is carried out in a clear and
orderly manner. (See Order 51 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules)

It is also important to note that Sundays and public holidays are excluded from
the days of service.

Signature and Sealing of Summons

Summons must be properly signed and sealed by a court official to be valid. In

High Court cases, the summons are typically signed by a Deputy Registrar or
Registrar, while in Magistrates’ Courts, they are signed by the magistrate. The
importance of this requirement was emphasized in cases such as E.A. Plans
Ltd v Roger Allan Birkford-Smith [1971] HCB 225, where the court ruled that
failure to sign and seal the summons rendered them null and void.

Similarly, in Kaur v Auction City Mart [1967] EA 108, the court reinforced that
unsigned or unsealed summons were invalid. However, the case of Kaigana v

Page 31
Dabo [1986] HCB 59 showed a more lenient view where minor irregularities
did not necessarily nullify the summons.

Joinder of plaintiffs and joinder of causes of action.

Order 1 rule 2.

 The plaintiff being joined must derive the cause of action from the same facts or a
series thereof.
 The plaintiff9s right of relief must be against the same defendant(s).
 The circumstances must be such that if the plaintiffs were to commence separate
suits, common questions of law and fact would arise.

However, it is not mandatory requirement; parties must have something in common. It

may not be applicable where such joinder would lead to embarrassing pleadings and
disable court from convenient determination of the suit.

In Fatuma Osman Hussein Vs Mahendra Umadbhai Patel [1995] KALR 671 where the
court (Katutsi,J.) observed as regards 0.1 r 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules:

“It seems to me that this rule ought to be strictly construed so, because its provision might

be made use of in a manner exceedingly harassing to plaintiffs by forcing them to include

in

their actions persons against whom they have no interest to proceed. Only in very strong

cases should one be forced to encounter a defendant he did not desire to meet in court.”

Semyalo Michael v The registered Trustees of Kampala Archdiocese.

The Supreme Court Held; there is no law or practice in this country, which makes it
mandatory for parties with similar causes of action to institute one and only one suit. In
theory and practice litigants who have the same or similar causes of action are free to
institute and each can institute separate suits. However, because of the necessity of
convenience and the need to save on time and particularly costs, on the part of parties,
parties who have the same cause of action are encouraged to institute one suit. This is a
common practice of procedure which is set out in Order 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Buikwe Estate Coffee Ltd Vs Lutabi:

At the hearing, counsel for the defendant made two preliminary objections on point of law
that there was a misjoinder of parties and causes of action contrary to O.1 r 1, O.2 r 2 and
3 (authority of advocate) and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to join them. Held: That

Page 32
the right to relief existing in all 3 plaintiffs if proved by evidence arose out of the same
transaction, namely, invalid resolution of the company which purported to oust the lawful
directors and accordingly there had been no misjoinder of parties and no misjoinder of
causes of action.

Uganda Commercial Trading Co. ltd Vs Jinja Cash Stores:

Counsel raised a preliminary objection that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff
had improperly joined separate defendants and causes of action in one suit. Held: That
under the Bulk Sales Ordinance the plaintiff in his capacity as a creditor of the 1st
defendant was entitled to have any redress against the 2nd defendant as transferee of the
lorries and a common question of law and fact would have arisen if separate suits were
brought. There was no misjoinder of the defendants or causes of action and the suit was
maintainable.

Yokana Kakire Vs Lunyo Estates Ltd:

The eight (8) plaintiffs each of whom claimed to be a tenant of the defendant company
sued for alleged interference with their rights of possession. The defendant contended that
there was misjoinder of parties and causes of action contrary to O.1 r 1, CPR. Held: that
the causes of action set out in the plaint did not arise out of the same act or transaction.
They were of wholly distinct and different acts of dispossession and interference of rights
of possession. There was no question of law or fact common to the several plaintiffs and
there was a misjoinder of plaintiffs and causes of action.

Stroud Vs Lawson:Held: That it is necessary that both conditions should be fulfilled and
that the right to relief alleged to exist in each plaintiff should be in respect of or arise out
the same transaction and also that there should be a common question of law or fact in
order that the case may be within the rule.

For the parties to be joined as plaintiffs, such parties must have capacity to sue or be sued.

Pathak v Zainab Mrekwe [1964] 1 EA 24 An action was filed in the name of the
respondent forty-five days after her death.

Held – (i) a suit instituted in the name of a dead person is a nullity; ( ii) the power
conferred by Order 10, r. 1 to substitute a plaintiff where a suit has been filed in the name
of a wrong person, can only be exercised where the wrong person is dead at such date.

The Fort Hall Bakery Supply Co v Muigai [1959] 1 EA 474

The Fort Hall Bakery Supply Company consists of forty-five persons trading in
partnership and

Page 33
that the name of the firm has never been registered under the Registration of Business
Names

Ordinance (No. 48 of 1951). It was therefore submitted for the defendant that this action is
not

properly before the court

Held A non-existent person cannot sue, and once the court is made aware that the plaintiff
is

non-existent, and therefore incapable of maintaining the action, it cannot allow the action
to

proceed.

The rationale of joinder of parties, is to prevent a multiplicity of suits. Same rationale for
representative suits. The essence of a representative suit was stated by Mead J in Sonko
and others Vs Halima and Anor (1971) EA 443 and was cited with approval in Hermezdas
Mulindwa and Anor. V Stanbic Bank U LtdnHCT-00-CC-CS-0426-2004 that the
provisions of Order 1 rule 8

are provisions of convenience to avoid the necessity for encumbering the plaintiffs or the

defendants with names of many persons and to avoid the necessity for their personal
service of

proceedings and their personal.

Semyalo Michael v The registered Trustees of Kampala Archdiocese.

Held; there is no law or practice in this country, which makes it mandatory for parties
with similar causes of

action to institute one and only one suit. In theory and practice litigants who have the
same or similar causes of action are free to institute and each can institute separate suits.
However, because of the necessity of convenience and the need to save on time and
particularly costs, on the part of parties, parties who have the same cause of action are
encouraged to institute one suit.

Page 34