Download

Uganda Judgment

Commercial Court of Uganda

Kampala City Council v Value Market Services Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 8 of 2007) [2007] UGCommC 18 (22 February 2007)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the City Council and the City Division Council are distinct legal entities, each capable of being sued in its own name. The statutory notice in question was addressed to the Central Division, but the suit was brought against the City Council of Kampala. The amendment sought by the applicant is intended to clarify whether the correct party was sued and whether the statutory notice was properly served. The court held that allowing the amendment would enable the real issues between the parties to be adjudicated and would likely avoid multiplicity of suits. There was no evidence that the amendment would cause injustice to the respondent, as any inconvenience could be compensated by costs. The application for leave to amend was therefore granted, with directions for the amended defence to be filed within seven days.

Court disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the applicant to amend its written statement of defence.
  • The amended written statement of defence must be filed within 7 days from the date of the ruling.
  • The order as to costs in the main suit shall bind the costs of this application.

02

Material facts

Parties

Kampala City Council

Applicant Counsel: H. S. B. Karugonjo

Value Market Services Ltd

Respondent Counsel: Ben Tungwako

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Amend Written Statement of Defence

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant argues that new facts have been discovered which merit incorporation into the defence, specifically that the statutory notice was drawn on the Central Division but the suit was brought against Kampala City Council, and that the defendant was not served with the requisite statutory notice. The applicant contends that under the Local Governments Act, the City Council and Division Councils are separate entities, each capable of being sued in their own name. The amendment is necessary to address these issues.
Respondent
The respondent argues that statutory notice was served on both the City Council of Kampala and the City Council of Kampala City Central Division, and that the notice was responded to by the City Advocate. The respondent contends that the intended amendment will delay or defeat the justice of the respondent's case and is unnecessary.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Order 6 rule 19 Civil Procedure Rules; Edward Seninde Vs Fred Luwaga (1995) IV KALR 149

    Amendments to pleadings should be freely allowed at any stage of the proceedings where it will enable the real question in controversy to be adjudicated and no injustice would be occasioned to the opposite party.

  2. 02

    Sections 3(3) and 6 of the Local Governments Act

    A City Council and a City Division Council are separate corporate bodies, each with capacity to sue and be sued in its own name.

  3. 03

    Order 1 rule 7 Civil Procedure Rules

    Where the plaintiff is in doubt as to the persons from whom redress may be obtained, two or more defendants may be joined so that liability can be determined between all parties.

  4. 04

    Harji Karon Vs Monjee Regharjee (1943) 190 EACA 10

    An amendment ought to be allowed if it enables the real substantial question to be realized between the parties and avoids multiplicity of proceedings.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the City Council and the City Division Council are distinct legal entities, each capable of being sued in its own name. The statutory notice in question was addressed to the Central Division, but the suit was brought against the City Council of Kampala. The amendment sought by the applicant is intended to clarify whether the correct party was sued and whether the statutory notice was properly served. The court held that allowing the amendment would enable the real issues between the parties to be adjudicated and would likely avoid multiplicity of suits. There was no evidence that the amendment would cause injustice to the respondent, as any inconvenience could be compensated by costs. The application for leave to amend was therefore granted, with directions for the amended defence to be filed within seven days.

Obiter and limits

  • If the respondent/plaintiff was in doubt as to which corporate body to proceed against, Order 1 rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules provided a solution by allowing joinder of parties.
  • There is no injustice if the other party can be compensated by way of costs.

Court disposition

application allowed

  • Leave is granted to the applicant to amend its written statement of defence.
  • The amended written statement of defence must be filed within 7 days from the date of the ruling.
  • The order as to costs in the main suit shall bind the costs of this application.

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.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Commercial Court of Uganda

Judgment

[2007] UGCommC 18

{\rtf1\ansi\deff1\adeflang1025 {\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fprq2\fcharset0 DejaVu Sans;}{\f1\fnil\fprq0\fcharset0 Times{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f2\fnil\fprq0\fcharset0 Times{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f3\fswiss\fprq2\fcharset0 DejaVu Sans;}{\f4\fnil\fprq0\fcharset0 Times{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f5\fswiss\fprq0\fcharset0 Helvetica;}} {\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;} {\stylesheet{\s1\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177\snext1 Normal;} {\s2\sb240\sa120\keepn\rtlch\af1\afs28\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af1\langfe255\hich\f5\fs28\lang7177\loch\f5\fs28\lang7177\sbasedon1\snext3 Heading;} {\s3\sa120\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177\sbasedon1\snext3 Body Text;} {\s4\sa120\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177\sbasedon3\snext4 List;} {\s5\sb120\sa120\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ai\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\f2\fs24\lang7177\i\loch\f2\fs24\lang7177\i\sbasedon1\snext5 caption;} {\s6\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177\sbasedon1\snext6 Index;} {\s7\sb120\sa120\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ai\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\i\loch\fs24\lang7177\i\sbasedon1\snext7

caption;} {\s8\li567\ri567\lin567\rin567\fi0\sa283\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177\sbasedon1\snext8 Quotations;} {\s9\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177\sbasedon1\snext9 Table Contents;} {\s10\qc\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ab\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\b\loch\fs24\lang7177\b\sbasedon9\snext10 Table Heading;} } {\info{\creatim\yr2007\mo8\dy20\hr16\min19}{\revtim\yr1601\mo1\dy1\hr0\min0}{\printim\yr1601\mo1\dy1\hr0\min0}{\comment StarWriter}{\vern6800}}\deftab709 {\*\pgdsctbl {\pgdsc0\pgdscuse195\pgwsxn11905\pghsxn16837\marglsxn1134\margrsxn1134\margtsxn1134\margbsxn1134\pgdscnxt0 Standard;}} \paperh16837\paperw11905\margl1134\margr1134\margt1134\margb1134\sectd\sbknone\pgwsxn11905\pghsxn16837\marglsxn1134\margrsxn1134\margtsxn1134\margbsxn1134\ftnbj\ftnstart1\ftnrstcont\ftnnar\aenddoc\aftnrstcont\aftnstart1\aftnnrlc \pard\plain \ltrpar\s3\sa120\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 {\rtlch \ltrch\loch\f1\fs24\lang7177\i0\b0 Last Updated: 25 May 2007} \par \pard\plain \ltrpar\s3\sa120\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 \par \pard\plain \ltrpar\s3\sa120\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 {\rtlch

\ltrch\loch\f1\fs24\lang7177\i0\b0 Kampala City Council V Value Market Services Ltd- HCT-00-CC-MA-0008-2007 [2007] UGCommC 18 (23 February 2007)\line \line THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA\line \line IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA\line COMMERCIAL COURT DIVISION\line \line {\ltrch\hich\b\loch\b HCT-00-CC-MA-0008-2007}\line Arising From HCT-00-CC-CS-0532- 2003\line \line Kampala City Council Applicant/Defendant\line \line Versus\line \line Value Market Services Ltd Respondent/Plaintiff\line \line {\ltrch\hich\b\loch\b 23 February 2007}\line \line \line {\ul\ulc0\ltrch\hich\b\loch\b HON. MR. JUSTICE LAMECK N. MUKASA}\line \line {\ul\ulc0\ltrch\hich\b\loch\b RULING:}\line \line This is an application by Chamber Summons under Order 6 rules 19 and 31 of the Civil Proc edure Rules for leave to amend the Defendant\'92s written statement of defence.\line \line The Application is supported by an affidavit sworn by H. S. B. Karugonjo the City Advocate wherein the grounds for the application are stated as follows:-} \par \trowd\trql\trleft567\trpaddft3\trpaddt28\trpaddfl3\trpaddl28\trpaddfb3\trpaddb28\trpaddfr3\trpaddr28\cellx1022\cellx9637 \pard\intbl\pard\plain \intbl\ltrpar\s9\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 {\rtlch \ltrch\loch\f1\fs24\lang7177\i0\b0 (i)} \cell\pard\plain

\intbl\ltrpar\s9\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 {\rtlch \ltrch\loch\f1\fs24\lang7177\i0\b0 The Applicant/Defendant has discovered new facts which merit incorporation in the defendant\'92s written statement of defence.} \cell\row\pard \trowd\trql\trleft567\trpaddft3\trpaddt28\trpaddfl3\trpaddl28\trpaddfb3\trpaddb28\trpaddfr3\trpaddr28\cellx1022\cellx9637 \pard\intbl\pard\plain \intbl\ltrpar\s9\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 {\rtlch \ltrch\loch\f1\fs24\lang7177\i0\b0 (ii)} \cell\pard\plain \intbl\ltrpar\s9\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 {\rtlch \ltrch\loch\f1\fs24\lang7177\i0\b0 The said new facts are that whereas the mandatory statutory notice was drawn on the Central Division, the suit was brought against Kampala City Council.} \cell\row\pard \trowd\trql\trleft567\trpaddft3\trpaddt28\trpaddfl3\trpaddl28\trpaddfb3\trpaddb28\trpaddfr3\trpaddr28\cellx1022\cellx9637 \pard\intbl\pard\plain \intbl\ltrpar\s9\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 {\rtlch \ltrch\loch\f1\fs24\lang7177\i0\b0 (iii)} \cell\pard\plain \intbl\ltrpar\s9\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 {\rtlch \ltrch\loch\f1\fs24\lang7177\i0\b0

The defendant Kampala City Council was not served with the requisite statutory notice.} \cell\row\pard \pard\plain \ltrpar\s3\sa120\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 {\rtlch \ltrch\loch\f1\fs24\lang7177\i0\b0 \line In paragraphs 6 of the affidavit it is averred that under the Local Governments Act, a Division Council and City Council are separate entities with capacity to sue and be sued in their own names. Annexed to the affidavit is the intended Amended Written St atement of defence whereby the following amendments are indicated:-} \par \pard\plain \ltrpar\s8\li567\ri567\lin567\rin567\fi0\sa283\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 {\rtlch \ltrch\loch\f1\fs24\lang7177\i0\b0 1. That it will be averred that the plaintiff sued a wrong party.\line 2. The defendant, City Council of Kampala, was not served with the requisite Statutory Notice.} \par \pard\plain \ltrpar\s3\sa120\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 {\rtlch \ltrch\loch\f1\fs24\lang7177\i0\b0 \line I have studied the pleadings before me and noted that the defendant in HCCS No. 532 of 2003 is stated to be City Council of Kampala. Annexed to the Affidavit in support is the Statutory Notice. The intended defendant named therein is City Council of Kampa la, Central

Division. It was to be served upon.} \par \pard\plain \ltrpar\s8\li567\ri567\lin567\rin567\fi0\sa283\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 {\rtlch \ltrch\loch\f1\fs24\lang7177\i0\b0 1. The Principal Assistant Town Clerk, Central Division, City of Kampala\line 2. The Town Clerk City Council of Kampala} \par \pard\plain \ltrpar\s3\sa120\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 {\rtlch \ltrch\loch\f1\fs24\lang7177\i0\b0 \line In its affidavit in reply, sworn by Ben Tungwako, the Respondent\'92s managing Director, it is averred that the statutory notice was served on both the City Council of Kampala and the City Council of Kampala City Central Division and that the statutory notic e was responded to by the office of the City advocate. It is argued that the intended amendment will delay or defeat the justice of the Respondent/plaintiff case.\line \line The general rule is that amendments to pleadings should be freely allowed at any stage of th e proceedings where a Court is satisfied that the amendment will enable the real question in controversy between the parties to be adjudicated upon and no injustice would be occasioned to the opposite party and there is no injustice if the other party can be compensated by way of costs. See Order 6 rule 19 Civil Procedure

Rules{\ltrch\hich\i\loch\i , }{\ul\ulc0\ltrch\hich\i\b\loch\i\b Edward Seninde Vs Fred Luwaga (1995) IV KALR 149}{\ul\ulc0 }{\ltrch\hich\b\loch\b . }} \par \pard\plain \ltrpar\s8\li567\ri567\lin567\rin567\fi0\sa283\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 {\rtlch \ltrch\loch\f1\fs24\lang7177\i0\b0 Section 3 (3) of the Local Government Act provides:-\line "(3) The Local Governments in a City shall be \'96} \par \pard\plain \ltrpar\s3\sa120\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 {\rtlch \ltrch\loch\f1\fs24\lang7177\i0\b0 (a) The City Council} \par \pard\plain \ltrpar\s3\sa120\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 {\rtlch \ltrch\loch\f1\fs24\lang7177\i0\b0 (b) The City division Councils"\line And section 6 of the same Act provides:-\line \line "Every Local government council shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal and may sue or be sued in its corporate name."} \par \pard\plain \ltrpar\s3\sa120\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 {\rtlch \ltrch\loch\f1\fs24\lang7177\i0\b0 It follows that a City Council and a City Division Council are separate corporate bodies irrespective of whether they are of the same city. The Statutory Notice in the instant suit

indicated the intended defendant as "City Council of Kampala, Central Divis ion" however the suit was filed against the Applicant "City Council of Kampala" The Statutory Notice was stated to be served on:} \par \pard\plain \ltrpar\s8\li567\ri567\lin567\rin567\fi0\sa283\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 {\rtlch \ltrch\loch\f1\fs24\lang7177\i0\b0 1. The principal Assistant Town Clerk, Central Division, City of Kampala.\line 2. The Town Clerk, City Council of Kampala.} \par \pard\plain \ltrpar\s3\sa120\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 {\rtlch \ltrch\loch\f1\fs24\lang7177\i0\b0 \line There is an issue of the intended defendant; was it the Central Division, City of Kampala or City Council of Kampala or both. The amendment sought is intended to address that issue and the issue whether the defendant was served with the mandatory statutor y notice. If the Respondent/Plaintiff was in doubt as to who of the two corporate bodies to proceed against rule 7 of Order 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules provided a solution. It states:-} \par \pard\plain \ltrpar\s8\li567\ri567\lin567\rin567\fi0\sa283\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 {\rtlch \ltrch\loch\f1\fs24\lang7177\i0\b0 "Where the plaintiff is in doubt as to the persons from

whom he or she is entitled to obtain redress, he or she may join two or more defendants in order that the questions as to which of the defendants is liable and to what extent, may be determined as bet ween all parties"} \par \pard\plain \ltrpar\s3\sa120\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 {\rtlch \ltrch\loch\f1\fs24\lang7177\i0\b0 An amendment ought to be allowed if thereby the real substantial question can be realized between the parties and multiplicity of proceedings avoided. See {\ul\ulc0\ltrch\hich\i\b\loch\i\b Harji Karon Vs Monjee Regharjee (1943) 190 EACA 10}\line \line In the circumstances of the instant case I find t hat the amendment sought will enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon the question of liability of the defendant/applicant and most likely result into avoidance of a multiplicity of suits and will not cause injustice to the responden t. I accordingly allow the application. An amended written statement of defence should be filed within 7 days from the date hereof. The order as to costs in the main suit shall bind the costs of this application.\line \line I so order . } \par \pard\plain \ltrpar\s1\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 \par }

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Edward Seninde Vs Fred Luwaga (1995) IV KALR 149

Case cited

Harji Karon Vs Monjee Regharjee (1943) 190 EACA 10

Case cited

Order 6 rule 19 Civil Procedure Rules

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Order 1 rule 7 Civil Procedure Rules

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 3(3) Local Governments Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 6 Local Governments Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.