Share
Leku & Anor v National Social Security Fund (Miscellaneous Cause No. 0004 of 2016) [2016] UGHCCD 35 (24 June 2016)
- Citation
- [2016] UGHCCD 35
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Stephen Mubiru, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Cause No. 0004 of 2016
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Stephen Mubiru, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Cause No. 0004 of 2016
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The application was fundamentally defective for failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements under the Administration of Estates of Persons of Unsound Mind (Procedure) Rules. The application was brought by notice of motion instead of summons in chambers, lacked the required supporting affidavit of kindred and fortune, and did not include a current medical certificate or a reception order as evidence of unsoundness of mind. The attached guardianship order from a Magistrates’ Court did not satisfy the statutory requirements, as it did not explicitly adjudge the person to be of unsound mind following a proper inquiry. Additionally, there was no proof of personal service on the person of unsound mind as required. These defects were incurable by amendment, rendering the application fatally defective and necessitating its striking out.
Court disposition
application struck out
Orders
- The application is struck out for being incurably defective.
- No order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Leku Christopher
Applicant Counsel: Samuel OdomaAtimago Vicky
Applicant Counsel: Samuel OdomaNational Social Security Fund
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Application
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application complies with the procedural requirements for administration of estates of persons of unsound mind.
- 02
Whether the supporting documents and evidence meet the statutory requirements for such applications.
- 03
Whether the respondent is a necessary party to the proceedings.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants sought orders under the Administration of Estates of Persons of Unsound Mind Act and the Mental Treatment Act, supported by an affidavit and a letter from a medical practitioner, and attached a guardianship order from a Magistrates’ Court.
- Respondent
- The respondent did not file arguments or appear to contest the application; the court proceeded to examine the application on its own motion.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Administration of Estates of Persons of Unsound Mind (Procedure) Rules, SI 155-1, rule 3
Applications under the Administration of Estates of Persons of Unsound Mind (Procedure) Rules must be made by summons in chambers, not notice of motion, and must be supported by specific affidavits and certificates as prescribed by the rules.
- 02
Mental Treatment Act, Cap 279, sections 4 and 5; SI 155-1, rule 3(2)(c)
A medical certificate confirming unsoundness of mind must be current and in the prescribed form, and a reception order under the Mental Treatment Act is required to adjudge a person as of unsound mind.
- 03
Kayondo v Attorney General [1988 - 90] H.C.B 127
Defective pleadings that cannot be cured by amendment may be struck out by the court on its own motion.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The application was fundamentally defective for failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements under the Administration of Estates of Persons of Unsound Mind (Procedure) Rules. The application was brought by notice of motion instead of summons in chambers, lacked the required supporting affidavit of kindred and fortune, and did not include a current medical certificate or a reception order as evidence of unsoundness of mind. The attached guardianship order from a Magistrates’ Court did not satisfy the statutory requirements, as it did not explicitly adjudge the person to be of unsound mind following a proper inquiry. Additionally, there was no proof of personal service on the person of unsound mind as required. These defects were incurable by amendment, rendering the application fatally defective and necessitating its striking out.
Obiter and limits
- The National Social Security Fund was not a necessary party to these proceedings.
- The court may strike out pleadings with defects apparent on the face of the record even in the absence of a formal objection.
Court disposition
application struck out
- The application is struck out for being incurably defective.
- No order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
HC: Civil 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: Civil Division (Uganda)
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA SITTING AT GULU
MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE No. 0004 OF 2016
1. LEKU CHRISTOPHER } 2. ATIMAGO VICKY } ……………………………... APPLICANTS
VERSUS
NATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY FUND ……………………... RESPONDENT
RULING
When this application came before me for hearing on the 24th of June 2016, none of the applicants was present but Mr. Onencan Ronald was holding brief for Mr. Samuel Odoma, counsel for the applicants, with instructions to seek an adjournment.
Nevertheless, upon perusal of the pleadings filed by the applicants, I noted that the application is brought under the provisions of section 2 of the *Administration of Estates of Persons of Unsound Mind Act*, Cap 155, section 4 of the *Mental Treatment Act*, cap 279, Order 52 rules1 and 3 of the *Civil Procedure Rules*, SI 71-1 and section 98 of the *Civil Procedure Act,* cap 71 and is supported by the affidavit of the first applicant, Mr. Leku Christopher.
I further observed the following anomalies; the application does not reference *The Administration of Estates of Persons of Unsound Mind (Procedure) Rules*, SI 155-1. As a result, it is brought by way of notice of motion whereas rule 3 (1) requires such applications to be made by summons in chambers. It does not have the following supporting documents required by rule 3 (2); an affidavit of kindred and fortune in Form A in the First Schedule to the Rules, a certificate in Form B in the First Schedule to the Rules, by the superintendent of the mental hospital where the person of unsound mind is a patient, or where the patient is not in a mental hospital, an affidavit by a medical practitioner stating that he or she has personally examined that person and that the person is still of unsound mind.
The application is instead supported by a photocopy of a letter, annexure “A” dated 15th May 2015, signed by a one Dr. Abiriga Jino of Masindi Hospital, stating that the patient suffers from *Bipolar Mental Disorder*, which condition is stated, in the same letter, to be “on and off”. There is no accompanying affidavit by this medical practitioner confirming that he has personally examined the patient since then (more than a year ago) and that the person is still of unsound mind. The medical certificate (Form B to the rules) required by rule 3(2) (c) envisages that the patient should have been adjudged to be a person of unsound mind. Such a decision is evidenced by issuance of a reception order under section 4 or 5 of the *Mental Treatment Act*, Cap 279. There is no such attachment to this application. Instead there is a “guardianship Order” (annexure “D”) issued by a Magistrates’ Court on 11th January, 2016. The *Mental Treatment Act*, does not provide for such orders and it is doubtful that the order can be construed as one adjudging the patient to be a person of unsound mind since there is no evidence on record or in the wording of the order that explicitly declares that it was made after an inquiry by that court, in which the magistrate personally saw the person suspected of being of unsound mind.
Furthermore, although the application was filed on 23rd March 2016 and the notice of motion issued for service on 5th April 2016, to-date, more than two months later, there is no proof of personal service upon the person of unsound mind, to whom the application relates, as required by rule 4 (1) of the said rules. The applicants joined National Social Security Fund, who in my view is not a necessary party to proceedings of this nature.
According to *Kayondo v Attorney General* *[1988 - 90] H. C. B 127*, court can on its own motion strike any pleadings where there is a defect apparent on the face of the record and where the defect cannot be cured by amendment.
It is my considered opinion that in light of the foregoing anomalies, this application is incurably defective and I, for that reason, strike out these pleadings with no order as to costs.
Delivered at Arua High Court this 24th day of June 2016
Stephen Mubiru
Judge.
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.