[2009] UGCommC 52

[2009] UGCommC 52

The application was brought under the wrong rule (Order 6 rule 18 instead of rule 19), but the procedure (Chamber Summons) was correct for an amendment of pleadings. The error in quoting the wrong rule is a technicality that does not cause injustice to the respondent. Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution empowers...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] UGCommC 52
Parties
Applicant: Francis Brake Lubega; Respondent: Barnabas Taremwa
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
HCT-00-CC-MA 421 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection overruled; application to proceed on merits
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Procedural Irregularity, Application of Article 126, Striking Out Unnecessary Matter
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Amendment of Pleadings Procedural Irregularity Application of Article 126 Striking Out Unnecessary Matter

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis Brake Lubega

Applicant

Barnabas Taremwa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the application for amendment of pleadings was properly brought under Order 6 rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether quoting the wrong procedural rule is fatal to the application.
  3. 3 Whether the court should strike out the application due to procedural irregularity.

Ratio Decidendi

The application was brought under the wrong rule (Order 6 rule 18 instead of rule 19), but the procedure (Chamber Summons) was correct for an amendment of pleadings. The error in quoting the wrong rule is a technicality that does not cause injustice to the respondent. Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution empowers the court to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities. Precedent supports the position that procedural defects may be cured if no injustice results. Therefore, the preliminary objection is overruled, and the application is allowed to proceed on its merits.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection overruled; application to proceed on merits

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is overruled.
  • The application will proceed on merit.