[2000] UGSC 23

[2000] UGSC 23

The Supreme Court found that two plaints were filed in respect of the same cause of action, involving different sets of parties, and that the conduct of the appellant's counsel in failing to properly amend pleadings, notify parties, and effect proper service constituted an abuse of the process of court. The trial...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] UGSC 23
Parties
Appellant: Kamurasi Charles; Respondent: Accord Properties Ltd; Respondent: Christopher Sekisambu
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Appeal 3 of 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judges
Oder, JSC, Karokora, JSC, Kanyeihamba, JSC
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Striking Out Plaint, Personal Costs Against Advocate, Amendment of Pleadings, Substituted Service, Natural Justice
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Striking Out Plaint Personal Costs Against Advocate Amendment of Pleadings Substituted Service Natural Justice

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kamurasi Charles

Appellant

Accord Properties Ltd

Respondent

Christopher Sekisambu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the filing of two plaints in respect of the same cause of action constituted an abuse of the process of court.
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in striking out the plaint and ordering costs against counsel personally.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant or his counsel was denied the right to be heard before being condemned in costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found that two plaints were filed in respect of the same cause of action, involving different sets of parties, and that the conduct of the appellant's counsel in failing to properly amend pleadings, notify parties, and effect proper service constituted an abuse of the process of court. The trial judge was justified in striking out the plaint. However, the Supreme Court held that the order for costs against counsel personally was made without giving him an opportunity to be heard, which violated the rule of natural justice. Therefore, while the appeal was dismissed and the orders of the High Court largely upheld, the order for costs against counsel personally was set...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The order of the High Court striking out the plaint is upheld.