[1993] UGHC 27
The court held that the suit was filed without service of the mandatory statutory notice of intention to sue as required by section 1 of Act 20/69. This omission rendered the head suit void ab initio, and as a result, there was no valid suit to support the application for a temporary injunction. Since the existence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1993] UGHC 27
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mbabali Muyanja Mohamed; Defendant: Uganda Commercial Bank
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Civil Suit No. 261/93
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Application for Temporary Injunction
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- Okello, J
- Legal Topics
- Temporary Injunction, Statutory Notice Requirement, Preliminary Objection, Void Ab Initio Proceedings
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mbabali Muyanja Mohamed
Plaintiff
Uganda Commercial Bank
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Application for Temporary Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit was validly instituted without service of statutory notice of intention to sue as required by section 1 of Act 20/69.
- 2 Whether the application for temporary injunction can be maintained in the absence of a valid head suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the suit was filed without service of the mandatory statutory notice of intention to sue as required by section 1 of Act 20/69. This omission rendered the head suit void ab initio, and as a result, there was no valid suit to support the application for a temporary injunction. Since the existence of a valid head suit is an essential condition for granting a temporary injunction, the application could not be maintained. The preliminary objection was upheld and the application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application for temporary injunction is dismissed.
- Costs are awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
CIVIL SUIT NO. 261/93
MBABALI MUYANJA MOHAMED:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
UGANDA COMMERCIAL BANK:::::::::::::::::::::::::::DEFENDANT
BEFORE: THE HON. MR. JUSTICE G. M. OKELLO
ORDER:
This application was brought under 037 rr 1,2 and 11 of the CPR and section 101 of the CPA. It sought an order for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant/Respondent from selling the Plaintiff/Applicant' s property. It also asked for cost of the application .
The grounds of the application were inter alia, that the
defendant had agreed with the plaintiff that the sale of suit property would be deferred under a new terms of payment under the second loan. That the sale of the Plaintiff's property was premature and unlawful as the statutory Notice was not issued.
The application was supported by an affirmation of the Applicant/Plaintiff dated 20/4/93-
At the commencement of the hearing of the application, counsel for the defendant/Respondent raised a preliminary objection. He argued in effect that the purported head suit was filed without first serving the defendant with the required statutory Notice of Intention to sue. That failure to comply with that mandatory legal requirement rendered the head suit void abimitio. He relied on WIG vs. Kaferu (1974) EA 477 at 480 where it was stressed that the Notice under section 1 of Act 20/69 was mandatory and that any failure to give it would be fatal to any proceedings. He also cited K. C. C. vs. NULIYATI (1974) EA 400 where SPRY V-P said at page 402 that once the question of Notice under section 1 of Act 20/69 was put as a defence. The onus was on the plaintiff to prove due delivery thereof.
The learned counsel submitted that in the instant case, there was no delivery of such a statutory Notice. He prayed that the application should be dismissed with cost failure to give the Notice rendered the head suit void abimitio. That the application was therefore not supported by the existing suit.
Mr. Nkuruziza for the Applicant Plaintiff concede that there was no delivery of the necessary statutory, Notice of Intention to sue as required by section 1 of Act 20/69.
It is pertinent to hear in mind that one of the essential conditions for application for a temporary injunction 0.37 rr 1, 2 and 11 of CPP is the existence of a head suit before an application of that type can be filed.
In the instant case it was admitted that the head suit was filed without first serving on the defendant/Respondent the necessary statutory Notice of intention to sue as require under section 1 (1) (c) of the Civil procedure and Limitation (Misc. Prov.) Act 20/69. This section is mandatory as was rightly pointed out by counsel for the Respondent. Failure to comply with it is fatal to the proceedings as was stated in Nic. Vs. Kaferu above. The effect of failure is that it rendered the head suit void abimitio.
Another condition for grant of a temporary injunction is the likelihood of the applicant succeeding in the head suit. In the instant case, a suit which was filed without due compliance with the mandatory of civil procedure (Misc. Provision) Act 20/69 was most unlikely to Succeed. Consequently application for a temporary injunction based on such a void suit cannot simply stand because it is not supported by an existing suit as required by 037 r. of the CPR.
For the reason given above, the objection is upheld. The application is therefore dismissed with cost to the Respondent.
G. M. OKELLO
JUDGE
12/5/93