Share
Meera Investiment Ltd Vs Jeshang Popat Shah (Hccs No. 1195 of 1997) [2000] UGHCCD 1 (16 May 2000)
- Citation
- [2000] UGHCCD 1
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Tabaro, J
- Case number
- Hccs No. 1195 of 1997
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Tabaro, J
- Case number
- Hccs No. 1195 of 1997
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court determined that the counterclaim need not be tried separately as it arose from the same facts as the main suit, and consolidation would avoid unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings. The defendant was allowed to amend the written statement of defence to challenge the plaintiff's locus standi, as there was no objection and it served the interests of justice. Ultimately, both the suit and counterclaim were withdrawn by consent of the parties, with the plaintiff required to account for rent collected and costs awarded to the defendant. The court facilitated settlement by appointing independent valuers to determine the value of the property, rental value, and the defendant's interest, ensuring an equitable resolution of the parties' financial entitlements.
Court disposition
Suit and counterclaim withdrawn by consent, with costs to the defendant and an order for the plaintiff to account for rent collected.
Orders
- The application to try the counterclaim separately is disallowed.
- Defendant granted leave to amend the written statement of defence to plead lack of locus standi.
- Suit and counterclaim withdrawn by consent with costs to the defendant.
- Plaintiff to account for rent collected so far.
- Independent valuers (Deloitte & Touche) appointed to determine property value, rental value, and defendant's interest.
02
Material facts
Parties
Meera Investments Ltd
Plaintiff Counsel: Byamugisha GumaJeshang Popat Shah
Defendant Counsel: J. Mukasa Semugenyi03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Suit / Interlocutory Applications, Withdrawal, and Settlement Proceedings
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the counterclaim should be tried separately or consolidated with the main suit.
- 02
Whether the defendant should be allowed to amend the written statement of defence to challenge the plaintiff's locus standi.
- 03
Whether the suit and counterclaim should be withdrawn by consent and on what terms, including accountability for rent collected.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The plaintiff's counsel argued for the institution of a separate suit to address the counterclaim, suggesting that it would be more appropriate to handle the issues independently. Later, the plaintiff sought to withdraw the suit in the interest of settlement, with no objection to accountability for rent collected.
- Respondent
- The defendant's counsel opposed the need for a separate suit, arguing that the counterclaim arose from the same facts as the main suit and that consolidation was appropriate. The defendant also sought to amend the defence to challenge the plaintiff's locus standi and agreed to withdrawal of the suit and counterclaim provided there was accountability for rent.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Civil Procedure Act, Section 33; court's inherent jurisdiction
The court has discretion to consolidate suits where issues are similar and arise from the same facts, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
- 02
Order 6 Rule 19, Civil Procedure Rules
Amendment of pleadings should be allowed where it does not prejudice the other party and serves the interests of justice.
- 03
Order 25 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Rules
Withdrawal of suits and counterclaims by consent is permissible, subject to terms agreed by parties and orders as to costs and accountability.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court determined that the counterclaim need not be tried separately as it arose from the same facts as the main suit, and consolidation would avoid unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings. The defendant was allowed to amend the written statement of defence to challenge the plaintiff's locus standi, as there was no objection and it served the interests of justice. Ultimately, both the suit and counterclaim were withdrawn by consent of the parties, with the plaintiff required to account for rent collected and costs awarded to the defendant. The court facilitated settlement by appointing independent valuers to determine the value of the property, rental value, and the defendant's interest, ensuring an equitable resolution of the parties' financial entitlements.
Obiter and limits
- Even if a separate suit were filed, the court would still have discretion to consolidate the suits.
- The application is disallowed to avoid multiplicity of suits.
- Amendment of pleadings is granted where there is no objection and it serves justice.
- Costs in the cause reflect the court's discretion in managing interlocutory matters.
Court disposition
Suit and counterclaim withdrawn by consent, with costs to the defendant and an order for the plaintiff to account for rent collected.
- The application to try the counterclaim separately is disallowed.
- Defendant granted leave to amend the written statement of defence to plead lack of locus standi.
- Suit and counterclaim withdrawn by consent with costs to the defendant.
- Plaintiff to account for rent collected so far.
- Independent valuers (Deloitte & Touche) appointed to determine property value, rental value, and defendant's interest.
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 HOLDEN AT KAMPALA
HCCS NO. 1195 OF 1997
MEERA INVESTMENTS LTD :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PLAINTIFF
versus
JESHANG POPAT SHAH ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: DEFENDANT
BEFORE: HON. MR. JUSTICE J. P. M. TABARO
PROCEEDINGS
27/5/1998
Mr. Byamugisha Guma for the plaintiff
Mr. J. Mukasa Semugenyi for the defendant.
Byamugisha:
The counter claim seems to cause
Mukasa:
Everything rises from the estate of the deceased
Byamugisha:
I would apply that a separate suit be instituted after making out the counter claim.
Mukasa:
Nothing new in the counter claim, of Springs from the plaintiff’s pleadings.
COURT
Even if a separate suit were filed the court would still have discretion to consolidate the suits. The issue are similar and spins from the estate in question for my view there is no need for a separate suit, or plucking out the counter claim. The application is therefore disallowed to avoid multiplicity of suits.
Sgd: J. P. M. Tabaro Judge 27/5/1998
Mukasa:
I apply to amend the W. S. D. so as to aver that the plaintiff has no locus standi in the matter.
Byamugisha:
No objection.
Court:
Application for amendment of W. S. D. granted. Costs in the cause.
Sgd: J. P. M. Tabaro Judge 27/5/1998
Court:
1. Hearing fixed for 5/8/1998. Today’s costs in the cause.
2. Plaintiff to amend the plaint to include a prayer for general damages.
Sgd: J. P. M. Tabaro Judge 27/5/1998
5/8/1998
No representation of plaintiff in court.
No counsel for plaintiff Defendant not present
Mr. Mukasa for defendant.
Mukasa:
Fixed by consent in the presence of both counsel. Counsel is not present and no reason has been assigned for the absence. Pray to be allowed ex-parte.
Order:
As the matter is quite significant I will reluctantly adjourn the cause with costs to the defendant payable before the next hearing date.
Mukasa:
The notice of the objections was served yesterday.
Order:
Hearing of the objections fixed for 22/10/1998. Today’s costs as already ordered, payable before then.
Sgd: J. P. M. Tabaro
JUDGE
5/8/1998
22/10/1998
Parties not present
Mr. Byamugisha Guma for the plaintiff
Mr. Mukasa Semugenyi for the defendant
MUKASA:
No reply to make. Court can rule on the matter.
Byamugisha:
Court can make the ruling.
Court:
The submissions were availed to me this morning. Ruling shall be written and delivered on notice.
Sgd: J. P. M. Tabaro Judge 22/10/1998
9/9/1999
Parties not present
Mr. Byamugisha Guma for plaintiffs
Mr. Sebugenyi Mukasa for defendants
Guma:
We are interested in settlement and desire to withdraw the suit.
Sebugenyi:
No objections so long as there are provisions so long as there are provisions for accountability of the recent is dated if so, the counter claim can be withdrawn.
ORDER
By consent of both counsel, Mr. Byamugisha Guma for plaintiff, that Mr. Sebugenyi Mukasa for defendant the plaint and counter claim are withdrawn with costs to the defendants. It is further agreed that the plaintiff shall account for the rent collected so far.
Sgd: J. P. M. Tabaro Judge 9/9/1999
11/01/2000
Parties not in court
Mr. Guma Byamugihsa for plaintiff
Mr. Sebugenyi Mukasa for defendant.
Mukasa:
Some accounts have been availed to us with some payment.
Guma:
No objections to an adjournment. We have done our best to satisfy the consent judgment.
Court:
For mention on 25/1/2000 at 9:00 a.m.
Sgd: J. P. M. Tabaro Judge
25/1/2000
Plaintiff not in court
Defendants not in court Mr. Byamugisha Guma for plaintiff Mr. Sebugenyi Mukasa for defendant.
Guma:
Some money has been paid to the defendants.
We have gone through the accounts. We have sent queries for clarifications. They are to be brought to the notice of my learned friend.
Guma:
No objection.
Court:
For mention on 4/2/2000 at 09:00 a.m.
Sgd: J. P. M. Tabaro Judge 25/11/2000
4/2/2000
Plaintiff not in court Defendant not in court Mr. Byamugisha Guma for plaintiff Mr. Sebugenyi Mukasa for defendant.
Guma:
I have agreed to meet with Mr. Mukasa next week. We believe we shall have a common position. Require a long adjournment.
Court:
For mention on day 11th 2000. Only figures are disputed. Payments have been made. Mr. Guma undertakes to inform Mr. Mukasa.
Sgd: J. P. M. Tabaro Judge 4/2/2000
Plaintiff not in court
Defendant's representative, with Powers of Attorney, Mr. Craig is in court.
Defendant's son J. Shaha is in court. Cphoter a barrister, also present.
Mr. Byamugisha for plaintiff.
Mr. Sebugenyi Mukasa for defendant.
Order:
Adjourned till 12/5/2000
1. midday, but would like to know of Mr. J. Shah has agreed to see his shares, out if so, at home with, 2. if there is no agreement then an independent value can fix the real payable, and the fine for the Shah's shares.
Sgd: J. P. M. Tabaro Judge 11/2/2000
12/5/2000
Plaintiff representative in court. He is Sudhir Ruparelia Defendants as before.
Mr. Mwesigwa Rukutana for the plaintiff. Assisted by Mr. Guma Byamugisha. Mr. Sebugenyi Mukasa for the defendant.
Order:
By consent of counsel for the parties it is read that Ms. Delloite & Tousche certified accountants be appointed valuers for extinguishing:
1. the value of the whole property 2. the rental value payable for the property 3. the value of the interest owned by the defendants, for the purpose of....
to the plaintiff shall be determined. Costs in the cause. For the terms of reference on 16/5/2000 at 3.00 p.m.
Sgd: J. P. M. Tabaro
Judge
16/5/2000
Parties not present
Mr. Mwesigwa Rukutana for plaintiff assisted by Mr. Guma Byamugisha. Mr. Sebugenyi Mukasa for defendant.
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.