Share
Damanico Properties Limited v Kaserebe and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 760 of 2021) [2022] UGHCLD 27 (18 February 2022)
- Citation
- [2022] UGHCLD 27
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Kawesa, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application No. 760 of 2021
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Kawesa, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application No. 760 of 2021
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that, given the peculiar conduct of the parties and the impracticality of expunging the plaint, the more tenable and practical solution was to order the plaintiffs to disclose the value of the subject matter and provide evidence of payment of all requisite court fees within 30 days. This would ensure that the plaint is properly on record as the basis for the consolidated suit, in compliance with procedural requirements and in the interest of justice. The application to expunge the plaint was not granted, but the alternative prayer for disclosure and payment of fees was allowed.
Court disposition
Alternative prayer granted; plaintiffs to disclose value of subject matter and provide evidence of payment of requisite fees within 30 days.
Orders
- Plaintiffs to disclose the value of the subject matter and provide evidence that all requisite fees have been paid within 30 days from the date of the ruling.
- Costs in the cause.
02
Material facts
Parties
Damanico Properties Ltd
Applicant Counsel: Alex TuhimbiseTusiime John Kaserebe
RespondentJotus Development Ltd
RespondentMother Kevin Women Open University Limited
RespondentKiwanuka Anthony
RespondentOchieng S. C. Peter
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Expunge Amended Plaint and for Disclosure of Subject Matter Value
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the amended plaint should be expunged for violating consolidation parameters.
- 02
Whether the plaintiff should be ordered to disclose the value of the subject matter and pay any requisite fees.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant seeks to have the amended plaint expunged for violating the agreed parameters for consolidation. In the alternative, the applicant requests that the plaintiff be ordered to disclose the value of the subject matter and pay any unpaid court fees.
- Respondent
- The 3rd respondent has petitioned for a stay of proceedings pending applications before the Court of Appeal. Other respondents' positions are not detailed in the ruling.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Civil Procedure Rules, Order 11; Court's inherent jurisdiction
Courts have discretion to manage consolidated suits and ensure compliance with procedural requirements, including proper pleadings and payment of requisite fees.
- 02
Civil Procedure Act, Section 19; relevant case law on court fees and pleadings
A plaint must disclose the value of the subject matter for assessment of court fees.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that, given the peculiar conduct of the parties and the impracticality of expunging the plaint, the more tenable and practical solution was to order the plaintiffs to disclose the value of the subject matter and provide evidence of payment of all requisite court fees within 30 days. This would ensure that the plaint is properly on record as the basis for the consolidated suit, in compliance with procedural requirements and in the interest of justice. The application to expunge the plaint was not granted, but the alternative prayer for disclosure and payment of fees was allowed.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted the strange and obstructive behaviour of the parties, which has hindered progress in the consolidated matters.
- The court observed that endless procedural disputes have prevented substantive resolution of the cases.
Court disposition
Alternative prayer granted; plaintiffs to disclose value of subject matter and provide evidence of payment of requisite fees within 30 days.
- Plaintiffs to disclose the value of the subject matter and provide evidence that all requisite fees have been paid within 30 days from the date of the ruling.
- Costs in the cause.
Source and reliance status
HC: Land Division (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.
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA [LAND DIVISION]
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 760 OF 2021 (ARISING FROM CONSOLIDATED HCCS NO. 164 OF 2017, HCMC NO. 288/2019, HCMC NO.435 OF 2019 & HCCS NO. 405 OF 2019)
DAMANICO PROPERTIES LTD::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT
VERSUS
- 1. TUSIIME JOHN KASEREBE - 2. JOTUS DEVELOPMENT LTD - 3. MOTHER KEVIN WOMEN OPEN UNIVERSITY LIMITED - 4. KIWANUKA ANTHONY - 5. OCHIENG S. C. PETER:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENTS
RULING
BEFORE HON. JUSTICE HENRY I. KAWESA
The application seeks order that the amended plaint be expunged for violating the agreed parameters for consolidating the several matter herein.
This is a very strange application. It represents the strange behaviour I have noticed in this matter because ever since this Court took over these cases, the parties have made it impossible for us to proceed on account of endless ping pong.
The ping pong is worsened by the 3rd respondents who for reasons stated by them on record as of now, have petitioned the Court to have their matter stayed pending other applications by them before Court of appeal.
The Applicants in this particular application now want the plaint to be rejected or in the alternative in their paragraph 4.19, the plaint is to be upheld, they pray that the Plaintiff should be ordered to disclose the value of the subject matter, so that if there and if there are unpaid fees, the same be paid by the Plaintiffs.
In view of the peculiar behaviour of all parties herein as I have alluded to the above, I find the alternative prayer more tenable and practical in these types of circumstances.
I therefore grant the said prayer as prayed for by the Applicant. In the alternative I order that the Plaintiffs do disclose the value of the subject matter and provide evidence that all requisite fees have been paid within 30 days from the date of this Ruling, in order for the plaint to be taken on record as the basis for the consolidated suit, in lieu of HCCS No. 164 of 2017, NT-MC No.288 of 2019, HCMC No.435 of 2019 and HCT CS No. 405 of 2019.
Costs in the cause.
I so order.
………………………
Henry I. Kawesa JUDGE 18/02/20221
18/02/2022
Alex Tuhimbise for the Applicant.
Applicant absent.
Tusiime John present; Director for JOTUS
The others absent.
Court: Ruling delivered to the parties above
………………………
Henry I. Kawesa
JUDGE
18/02/2022
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.