[2006] UGHC 69

[2006] UGHC 69

The court found that the defendant described in the plaint, The Board of Trustees, Miracle Centre Cathedral, does not exist in law and therefore cannot be sued. The attempt to add Pastor Robert Kayanja as a defendant was deemed an impermissible substitution of a non-existent party, which the law does not allow. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] UGHC 69
Parties
Applicant: The Trustees of Rubaga Miracle Centre; Respondent: Mulangira Ssimbwa; Applicant: Afidra Milton; Respondent: The Board of Trustees, Miracle Centre; Respondent: Pastor Robert Kayanja
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Misc. Applications No. 576 of 2006 & 655 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
plaint_rejected_and_application_to_amend_dismissed
Legal Topics
Capacity to Sue, Amendment of Pleadings, Burden of Proof, Joinder of Parties
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Capacity to Sue Amendment of Pleadings Burden of Proof Joinder of Parties

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Trustees of Rubaga Miracle Centre

Applicant

Mulangira Ssimbwa

Respondent

Afidra Milton

Applicant

The Board of Trustees, Miracle Centre

Respondent

Pastor Robert Kayanja

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the defendant named in the suit is a legal entity capable of being sued.
  2. 2 Whether the plaint can be amended to substitute or add a party where the original defendant does not exist.
  3. 3 Whether the burden of proof regarding the defendant's legal existence was discharged by the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant described in the plaint, The Board of Trustees, Miracle Centre Cathedral, does not exist in law and therefore cannot be sued. The attempt to add Pastor Robert Kayanja as a defendant was deemed an impermissible substitution of a non-existent party, which the law does not allow. The burden of proof to establish the defendant's legal existence was on the plaintiff, who failed to discharge it. As a result, the plaint was rejected and the application to amend the plaint was dismissed. The court held that a suit against a non-existent defendant cannot be cured by amendment, and no order as to costs was made since a non-existent party cannot be awarded costs.

Court Disposition

plaint_rejected_and_application_to_amend_dismissed

Orders

  • The plaint in HCCS No. 768 of 2004 is rejected.
  • Miscellaneous Application No. 655 of 2005 is dismissed.