Share
Balikowa Nixon v Post Bank Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 587 of 2007) [2007] UGCommC 78 (17 October 2007)
- Citation
- [2007] UGCommC 78
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Commercial Court of Uganda
- Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Amendment of Plaint
- Case number
- HCT-00-CC-MA 587 of 2007
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Commercial Court of Uganda
- Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Amendment of Plaint
- Case number
- HCT-00-CC-MA 587 of 2007
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the objection regarding immunity under Section 118(2) of the Financial Institutions Act should not be determined at the stage of considering an application for amendment and joinder of parties. The proper time to address such substantive objections is at trial, after evidence has been adduced. Since the respondent did not oppose the application on any other ground, and in order to ensure that all matters in issue between the parties are fully heard and determined, the court found it just to allow the applicant to amend the plaint and add Bank of Uganda as a defendant. The application was therefore allowed, with costs in the cause, and the applicant was directed to file an amended plaint within ten days.
Court disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Leave is granted to the applicant to amend the plaint and add Bank of Uganda as a defendant.
- The plaintiff shall file an amended plaint within 10 days from the date of this ruling.
- Costs of this application are to be in the cause.
02
Material facts
Parties
Balikowa Nixon
Applicant Counsel: Kiyemba MutalePost Bank Ltd
Respondent Counsel: Adriko03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Amendment of Plaint
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether leave should be granted to amend the plaint to add Bank of Uganda as a party to the suit.
- 02
Whether the objection based on immunity under Section 118(2) of the Financial Institutions Act should be determined at this stage.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that the respondent, in its defence, claims to have acted under an order from Bank of Uganda, the regulator of financial institutions. The applicant argues that Bank of Uganda should be held accountable for its actions and that any objection regarding immunity should be addressed at trial, not at this preliminary stage.
- Respondent
- The respondent opposes the application on the ground that it enjoys immunity from liability under Section 118(2) of the Financial Institutions Act. The respondent argues that this immunity precludes the addition of Bank of Uganda as a party to the suit.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Joinder of parties is permitted where it is necessary to fully and effectively adjudicate all matters in dispute.
- 02
Section 118(2) of the Financial Institutions Act
Immunity from liability for financial institutions and their officers as provided under statute should be determined at trial, not at the interlocutory stage.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the objection regarding immunity under Section 118(2) of the Financial Institutions Act should not be determined at the stage of considering an application for amendment and joinder of parties. The proper time to address such substantive objections is at trial, after evidence has been adduced. Since the respondent did not oppose the application on any other ground, and in order to ensure that all matters in issue between the parties are fully heard and determined, the court found it just to allow the applicant to amend the plaint and add Bank of Uganda as a defendant. The application was therefore allowed, with costs in the cause, and the applicant was directed to file an amended plaint within ten days.
Obiter and limits
- The question of whether the freezing order issued by Bank of Uganda was quashed by the High Court and its effect on the defendant's liability will be considered at trial.
- Substantive objections based on statutory immunity are best addressed after evidence is taken, not at the interlocutory stage.
Court disposition
application allowed
- Leave is granted to the applicant to amend the plaint and add Bank of Uganda as a defendant.
- The plaintiff shall file an amended plaint within 10 days from the date of this ruling.
- Costs of this application are to be in the cause.
Source and reliance status
Commercial Court of Uganda
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Commercial Court of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN AT KAMPALA
COMMERCIAL COURT DIVISION
HCT-00-CC-MA-0587-2007
(Arising from HCT-00-CC-CS-0774-2007)
Balikowa Nixon Applicant
Versus
Post Bank Ltd Respondent
BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE FMS EGONDA-NTENDE
RULING
1. The applicant is seeking leave to amend his plaint and add Bank of Uganda as a party to this suit and that costs of this application be provided for. The main ground of this application is that the respondent in its written statement of defence claims that it is acting in accordance with an order from Bank of Uganda which is the regulator of the financial institutions. It is the contention of the applicant that the Bank of Uganda should be held accountable for its actions.
2. This application was opposed by the respondent on the ground that the current defendant enjoys immunity from liability in accordance with Section 118(2) of the Financial Institutions Act. Mr. Kiyemba Mutale for the applicant argued that this objection should form part of the issues at trial, and not be raised at this stage.
3. I have read the plaint and it appears to me that it is the contention of the plaintiff in the plaint that any freezing order that the Bank of Uganda purported to issue had been quashed by the High Court of Uganda, and thus afforded no protection to the defendant. This is a matter that will be considered at some point in the trial of this case. It may be that evidence may have to be taken before the issue can be concluded. It does not have to be necessarily considered at this stage when we are dealing with whether or not to add a party to this action. For that reason I decline to deal with the objection to this application raised by Mr. Adriko, learned counsel for the respondent.
4. As the respondent did not oppose this application upon any other ground, other than the claim for immunity from liability for the respondent, and it does appear to me, that in order to fully hear and determine all matters in issue between the parties, it is just to allow the applicant add Bank of Uganda as a defendant in this matter.
5. I accordingly allow this application with costs in the cause. The plaintiff shall file an amended plaint with 10 days from today. Signed, dated and delivered this 18th day of October 2007
FMS Egonda-Ntende Judge
* [Commercial Court](http://www.ulii.org/commercial-court) * [Add to Significant Recent Additions](http://www.ulii.org/admin/content/nodequeue/1/add/1/5212?destination=node%2F5212&token=96b37ec3a88ce47d18feefec071bae82)
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN AT KAMPALA
COMMERCIAL COURT DIVISION
HCT-00-CC-MA-0587-2007
(Arising from HCT-00-CC-CS-0774-2007)
Balikowa Nixon Applicant
Versus
Post Bank Ltd Respondent
BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE FMS EGONDA-NTENDE
RULING
1. The applicant is seeking leave to amend his plaint and add Bank of Uganda as a party to this suit and that costs of this application be provided for. The main ground of this application is that the respondent in its written statement of defence claims that it is acting in accordance with an order from Bank of Uganda which is the regulator of the financial institutions. It is the contention of the applicant that the Bank of Uganda should be held accountable for its actions.
2. This application was opposed by the respondent on the ground that the current defendant enjoys immunity from liability in accordance with Section 118(2) of the Financial Institutions Act. Mr. Kiyemba Mutale for the applicant argued that this objection should form part of the issues at trial, and not be raised at this stage.
3. I have read the plaint and it appears to me that it is the contention of the plaintiff in the plaint that any freezing order that the Bank of Uganda purported to issue had been quashed by the High Court of Uganda, and thus afforded no protection to the defendant. This is a matter that will be considered at some point in the trial of this case. It may be that evidence may have to be taken before the issue can be concluded. It does not have to be necessarily considered at this stage when we are dealing with whether or not to add a party to this action. For that reason I decline to deal with the objection to this application raised by Mr. Adriko, learned counsel for the respondent.
4. As the respondent did not oppose this application upon any other ground, other than the claim for immunity from liability for the respondent, and it does appear to me, that in order to fully hear and determine all matters in issue between the parties, it is just to allow the applicant add Bank of Uganda as a defendant in this matter.
5. I accordingly allow this application with costs in the cause. The plaintiff shall file an amended plaint with 10 days from today. Signed, dated and delivered this 18th day of October 2007
FMS Egonda-Ntende Judge
* [Commercial Court](http://www.ulii.org/commercial-court) * [Add to Significant Recent Additions](http://www.ulii.org/admin/content/nodequeue/1/add/1/5212?destination=node%2F5212&token=96b37ec3a88ce47d18feefec071bae82)
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.