Download

Uganda Judgment

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Kiggala and 3 Others v Henry Panel Works Limited and 2 others (Miscellaneous Criminal Application 2820 of 2024) [2024] UGHCLD 257 (23 October 2024)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the respondents' filing of Miscellaneous Application No.2820/2024, seeking to amend the counter claim while a preliminary objection in Miscellaneous Application No.2255/2024 was pending and unopposed, constituted an abuse of court process. The court held that such conduct was intended to defeat the preliminary objection and delay the proceedings, which is contrary to the principles set out in the Judicature Act and Civil Procedure Rules. Consequently, the court granted Miscellaneous Application No.2255/2024 as prayed and rejected the application to amend the counter claim, emphasizing that abuse of process and unnecessary delays will not be tolerated.

Court disposition

preliminary_objection_upheld_and_application_to_amend_counter_claim_rejected

Orders

  • Miscellaneous Application No.2255/2024 is granted as prayed.
  • Miscellaneous Application No.2820/2024 seeking amendment of the counter claim is rejected.
  • No order as to costs in Miscellaneous Application No.2820/2024.

02

Material facts

Parties

Kiggala Joseph Kalemera

Applicant Counsel: Martin Muhumuza

Kikonyogo Andrew Kiwewesi

Applicant Counsel: Martin Muhumuza

Nantege Ruth

Applicant Counsel: Martin Muhumuza

Saava Doris Day Nakalembe (Administrators of the Estate of the Kasalina Nkinzi)

Applicant Counsel: Martin Muhumuza

Henry Panel Works Limited

Respondent Counsel: Ssemanda Zziwa Ben

Ssentongo Kiggunu Daniel

Respondent Counsel: Ssemanda Zziwa Ben

Commissioner Land Registration

Respondent Counsel: Ssemanda Zziwa Ben

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Counsel for the applicants argued that the preliminary objection in Miscellaneous Application No.2255/2024 should be upheld as it was unopposed and that the respondents' subsequent application to amend the counter claim was an abuse of court process intended to defeat the preliminary objection.
Respondent
Counsel for the respondents stated they did not reply to Miscellaneous Application No.2255/2024 because they found it necessary to file Miscellaneous Application No.2820/2024 seeking to add another party and amend the counter claim, and requested leave of court to do so.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Order 6 Rule 28 Civil Procedure Rules

    A point of law may be raised by any party and must be disposed of by the court at the hearing or set down for hearing and disposed of at any time.

  2. 02

    Section 17(2) Judicature Act Cap 16

    Abuse of court process is not encouraged and applications calculated to defeat pending matters may be rejected.

  3. 03

    Order 6 Rule 29 Civil Procedure Rules

    Where an application is unopposed, the court may grant it as prayed.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the respondents' filing of Miscellaneous Application No.2820/2024, seeking to amend the counter claim while a preliminary objection in Miscellaneous Application No.2255/2024 was pending and unopposed, constituted an abuse of court process. The court held that such conduct was intended to defeat the preliminary objection and delay the proceedings, which is contrary to the principles set out in the Judicature Act and Civil Procedure Rules. Consequently, the court granted Miscellaneous Application No.2255/2024 as prayed and rejected the application to amend the counter claim, emphasizing that abuse of process and unnecessary delays will not be tolerated.

Obiter and limits

  • A point of law may be raised and disposed of at any time during proceedings.
  • Delays in trials caused by abuse of process undermine the administration of justice.
  • No order as to costs was made since the respondents had not yet replied to the application.

Court disposition

preliminary_objection_upheld_and_application_to_amend_counter_claim_rejected

  • Miscellaneous Application No.2255/2024 is granted as prayed.
  • Miscellaneous Application No.2820/2024 seeking amendment of the counter claim is rejected.
  • No order as to costs in Miscellaneous Application No.2820/2024.

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.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Judgment

[2024] UGHCLD 257

REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (LAND DIVISION)

MISC. APPLICATION NO.282O OF 2024

(ARTSTNG FROM CrVrL SUrT NO.382 OF 20221

1. KIGGALA JOSEPH KALEMERA

2. KIKONYOGO ANDREW KIWEWESI

3. NANTEGE RUTH

4. SAAVA DORIS DAY NAKALEMBE (ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF THE KASALINA NKINZI) APPLICANTS

VERSUS

1. HENRY PANEL WORKS LIMITED

2. SSENTONGO KIGGUNDU DANIEL

3. COMMISSIONER LAND REGISTRATION RESPONDENTS

RULING

BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE NABAKOOZA FLAVIA K.

Parties present. Clerk Nakabuye.

Court: On 16th Scptember 2024 at 1O:46 am Counsel Martin Muhumuza informed court that they had a filed Misc. Application No.2255 /2024 with <sup>a</sup> preliminary objection to the counter claim.

In reply counsel Ssemanda Zziwa Ben told court that the police asked for 2 weeks to give them a copy of the Forensic report and that they were not aware of thc Preliminary Objection but they were going to access it and file a reply to it ald prayed for a mention date.

This court gavc today 23/lOl2024 at 9:40am as the next Hearing date. Today counsel Muhumuza has askcd court uphold the preliminary objection in Miscellaneous Application 2255 /2024 since it's a contested.

In reply counsel Ssemanda Ben Zziwa has informed court that they did not reply to the Misc. Application No.2255l2O2a because they found it necessary to filc Miscellaneous Application No.282O /2024 applying to add another party the lst Henry panel work Ltd with leave of court to amend the counter claim.

In my evaluation of the above a point of law many be raised by any party, and it shall be disposed of by court at the hearing, or the point of law can be set down for hearing and disposed of at any time see order 6 rule 28 Civil Procedure Rule (c. P. R)

In this case counsel Ssemanda was ordered to reply to Miscellaneous Application No.2255/2024 before the next mention date on 16/O9/2024 by 23/10/2O2a, which was more than a month, but instead decided to file another Application No.2820l2024 seeking to amend the very counter claim a preliminary objection was raised.

This action is an abuse of court process calculated to defeat Miscellaneous Application No.2255 12024 which this court will not cncourage as provided by S. 17(2) ofJudicature Act Cap 16.

Therefore, this Miscellaneous Application No.2255/2024 is granted as prayed since its un opposed under order 6 ruJe 29 of Civil Procedure Rule (C. P. R), and this also covers Miscellaneous Application No.282O 12024 the application to amend the counter claim is rejected with the events in Miscellaneous Application <sup>2255</sup>/2024 under S. 17 2(a) Judicature Act Cap 1.6 since it's an abuse of court process ... delays in trials.

I make no order to costs in Miscellaneous Application 2820 /2024 since the Respondents had not yet responded in reply.

il^,., /r) Signed, dated and delivered at Kampala this o24.

Nabakooza F1 Kalungi Ju

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.

Order 6 Rule 28 Civil Procedure Rules

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Order 6 Rule 29 Civil Procedure Rules

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 17(2) Judicature Act Cap 16

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.