[2005] UGCommC 17

[2005] UGCommC 17

The court found that the respondents had obtained the necessary permission to bring the suit in a representative capacity and that notice was properly published in accordance with Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The discrepancy in the number of persons listed in the court order and the published notice...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] UGCommC 17
Parties
Applicant: British American Tobacco Uganda Ltd; Respondent: Sedrach MwijaKubi; Respondent: Mukitale Asiimwe; Respondent: Joshua Byangire; Respondent: Fenakansi Byabesiza; Respondent: Solomon Kiiza
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
HCT-00-CC-MA 298 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Representative Suits, Order 1 Rule 8, Strike Out Application, Costs Award
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Representative Suits Order 1 Rule 8 Strike Out Application Costs Award

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

British American Tobacco Uganda Ltd

Applicant

Sedrach MwijaKubi

Respondent

Mukitale Asiimwe

Respondent

Joshua Byangire

Respondent

Fenakansi Byabesiza

Respondent

Solomon Kiiza

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the respondents had proper permission to institute a representative suit on behalf of the listed persons.
  2. 2 Whether the court published adequate notice of the institution of the suit to the persons represented.
  3. 3 Whether the discrepancy in the number of persons listed in the court order and the published notice invalidates the representative action.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents had obtained the necessary permission to bring the suit in a representative capacity and that notice was properly published in accordance with Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The discrepancy in the number of persons listed in the court order and the published notice was deemed immaterial, as the law does not require an exact figure but rather a common interest among those represented. The application to strike out the suit was therefore without merit and was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to strike out the head suit is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the respondents.