Authored By: Edwongu Lekos Odidi
Uganda Christian University
INTRODUCTION
The Appellants were dissatisfied with the dismissal of an appeal to the Court of Appeal which led to the second appeal[1]. The matter culminated from a summary suit to the High Court which dismissed the application for unconditional leave to appear and defend[2].
The Supreme Court held that the appeal was allowed[3]. The consent judgment in the summary suit was set aside and the appellants were granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the suit[4]. The costs of the appeals in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal and the application to the High Court were awarded to the appellants[5].
The legal area impacted by this judgment is the application of discretion on appeal in matters where both sides have seemingly credible evidence to prove their case[6].
FACTS OF A CASE
The Respondent issued a suit in the High Court against a partnership firm for a sum of Uganda Shillings Seventeen Million only[7].
It was payable in case of default at the rate of Uganda Shillings Fifty Thousand only per day[8]. The loan was not paid on the due date[9].
In the affidavit in support of the summary suit, the Respondent averred that defendant (now the respondent) has no defense to the claim[10].
The court reached a consent judgment which was filed on 15th April 2002 for sum claimed between counsel for the plaintiff and Matsiko Kasiimwe from GMT (defendant)[11].
The consent judgment was formally entered and signed by the Deputy Registrar on 18th April 2002[12].
The Appellants became aware of the consent judgment on 6th May 2002 after being served a Warrant of Attachment in execution of the decree[13].
The Appellants filed an application that praying that the execution of the decree be stayed and/or the decree be set aside and that they be given leave to appear in and defend the suit[14].
The grounds of this application were that service of summons was not effected on them[15], consent judgment was executed fraudulently[16] and Matsiko Kasiimwe did not enter into the loan agreement as co-partner[17]. This application was supported by two affidavits deponed by the appellants[18]. Matsiko Kasiimwe swore and filed an affidavit in reply to the application[19]. The Respondent filed another affidavit in reply[20]. The Appellants filed affidavits in rejoinder[21].
The Trial Judge heard the application and dismissed it[22]. It was held that service of summons was duly effected since Matsiko Kasiimwe acted with ostensible authority and the alleged fraud had been proved[23].
The Court of Appeal upheld the findings of the trial judge on all issues[24].
LEGAL ISSUES
Whether the Respondent effectively served the Appellants with summons before the judgment?
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED
APPELLANTS’ ARGUMENTS
Whether the Respondent effectively served the Appellants with summons before the judgment?
It was submitted that Matsiko Kasiimwe and the Respondent conspired to defraud the partnership and the Appellants[25].
It was established that Matsiko Kasiimwe entered a loan agreement and signed the consent judgment without informing the co-partners or obtaining their consent[26].
It was also provided that the terms of the loan agreement and the consent judgment that were so unconscionable as against the partnership[27].
It was contended that it was erroneous for the Court of Appeal to base its decision on the same circumstances as the Trial Court[28].
It was submitted that Matsiko Kasiimwe was accused of fraudulent conspiracy, admitted liability and signed the consent judgment purportedly the partnership[29].
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
Whether the Respondent effectively served the Appellants with summons before the judgment?
It was provided that both of the lower courts rightly relied on the consent judgment because it was not forged but lawfully signed and entered by the Deputy Registrar[30].
It was argued that Matsiko Kasiimwe did not intend to use the judgment to defraud the Appellants because this was not the issue before court for determination[31].
It was established that the court had no duty to inquire into the subsequent intention of Matsiko Kasiimwe to use the judgment to defraud the Appellants[32].
It was provided that the consent judgment may only be set aside for fraud, collusion or any reason which would enable court to set aside this agreement[33].
It was submitted that the appellant’s did not allege that fraud did not take place prior to or after the consent judgment[34].
It was stated that the Appellants only allege conspiracy to defraud[35].
It is provided that the appellants had no right to proceed against Matsiko Kasiimwe but that cannot be used to avoid the partnership liability to the respondent[36].
COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS
Whether the Respondent effectively served the Appellants with summons before the judgment?
It was provided that the summary suit was instituted such that the defendant must not appear and defend except with leave of court either prior to the judgment or after the decree respectively[37].
It is submitted that the lower courts held that the service of summons was effective by virtue of a proviso under the Civil Procedure Rules[38].
It is noted that the court is given wide discretion upon being satisfied that service of summons was not effective or there is any other good cause[39].
It was submitted that court should grant leave only if it seems reasonable to do so[40].
It was established that the lower courts rejected the appellant’s application in the exercise of their wide discretion[41]. This is because they held that there was effective service of summons and no good cause to set aside the consent judgment[42].
It was provided that the learned trial Judge was satisfied that service was duly effected upon Matsiko, a partner in the GMT group[43].
It was submitted that the appellants being dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, commenced an appeal and contended that this holding was not based on any evidence[44].
It was noted in the lead judgment of the Court of Appeal that out of the three modes of service of summons on a partnership, service on one or more of the partners is applicable[45].
It was established that there was no direct evidence that any of the partners was served[46]. However, there was sufficient material upon which the trial Judge satisfied that there had been effective service[47]. This material includes the consent judgment alongside an affidavit of Matsiko Kasiimwe admitting having received service of summons on behalf of the partnership and failing to deny service of summons[48].
It was submitted that the learned Justice of Appeal was satisfied to justify effective service of summons which meant they were properly served and had no defence to the suit[49].
It was provided that service on one partner who then submits to the judgment binds other partners even though they knew nothing about the suit and did not agree to submit to judgment[50].
It was submitted that the learned Justice of the Supreme Court found no legal support for this view with due respect.
It was provided that in considering the Civil Procedure Rules[51], good service upon a firm must be premised on an assumption that all the persons sued under the firm name receive the summons[52].
It was established under the Civil Procedure Rules[53], partners must enter appearance in their individual names[54].
It was submitted that the suit against a partnership firm is in essence a suit against the individual partners jointly or severally[55].
It was established that the partners failed to comply with the requirement to enter appearance because they were not made aware of the summons and the suit[56].
It was provided that the Civil Procedure Rules[57] do not constitute a partnership firm into a corporate legal person nor vest in the person served power of attorney to act for all the partners of the firm sued[58].
It was submitted that the alternative modes of services are only for expediency[59].
It was established that this proviso must not be construed as compromising the right of any partner to know of a suit instituted against him or her in the firm name[60].
It was provided that the circumstances do not give the partner an opportunity to decide whether or not enter appearance and defend or decide whether or not to apply for leave to appear and defend in a summary suit[61].
It was stated that the learned Justice of the Supreme Court noted that the two expressions that is to say, “deemed good service”[62] and “effective service”[63] are significantly different[64].
It was submitted that the lower courts assumed that the above expressions meant the same thing and actually used them interchangeably[65].
It was provided that “effective” means producing the result that is wanted or intended; producing a successful result[66].
It was established that the context reveals effective service of summons to mean service of summons that produced the desired or intended result[67].
It was stated that non-effective service of summons means service that does not produces such result[68].
It was provided that the desired or intended result of serving summons on the defendant in a civil suit to make the defendant aware of the suit brought against him[69].
It was submitted that the defendant must have an opportunity to respond to a suit by defending it or admitting to liability and submitting to judgment[70].
It was suggested that the surest mode of achieving that result is serving the defendant in person[71].
It was provided that the Civil Procedure Rules[72] contain diverse modes of serving summons that the possibility of service failing to produce the intended result cannot be ruled out in every case[73].
It was established that in appropriate circumstances, service may be lawfully made on the defendant’s agent[74].
It was observed that the intended result will not be achieved if the agent omits to make the defendant aware of the summons[75].
It was stated that court may order substituted service by way of publishing the summons in the press[76].
It was submitted that the publication may produce lawful service, it will not produce the desired result if it does not come to the defendant’s notice[77].
It was established that the service must lead to the defendant being aware of the summons[78].
It was provided that the word “deemed” may be used in legislation to create legal or statutory fiction for the purpose of assuming the existence of a fact that in realty does not exist[79].
It was suggested that service that is deemed to be good service must be produce the intended result to be effective[80].
It was observed that there is no evidence of service on any partner at all[81].
It was concluded that the appellants were not duly served because they became aware of the suit at the time of execution of the decree[82].
The Supreme Court held that service of summons was not effective despite Matsiko Kasiimwe being served with summons[83].
It was submitted that there should be other good cause for granting leave to the appellants to defend the suit[84].
It was stated that the court is not required to determine the merits of the suit in an application for leave to appear and defend a summary suit[85].
It was submitted that the court must determine whether the defendant has shown good cause to be given leave to defend[86].
It was provided that courts consider a triable defence to the suit to be consistently held to amount to good cause[87].
It was suggested that Matsiko Kasiimwe acted without authority and the firm did not utilize the alleged loan which proved to the required standard the appellants could constitute a valid defence to the suit[88].
It was submitted that it is reasonable to grant the appellants leave to defend the suit[89].
JUDGMENT AND RATIO DECIDENDI
Whether the Respondent effectively served the Appellants with summons before the judgment?
The Supreme Court held that there was no effective service of summons and the appellant has shown a triable defence to the suit[90]. The appeal was allowed and the judgments of the lower courts set aside[91].
The ratio decidendi is that effective service of summons must result in the defendant becoming aware of the suit instituted by a plaintiff[92]. The applicant for leave to appear and defend must ask court for an opportunity to prove a defence at trial[93].
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
The significance of the Judgment is that court’s must apply their wide discretion when relying on evidence of both sides in a suit or an application or an appeal[94]. The proof for effecting service of summons and the need to prove a triable defence are denoted as getting the desired result and showing good cause respectively[95]. The decision aligns with the court’s discretion to administer justice in the circumstances[96].
The Appellants are granted unconditional leave to appear and defend against a summary suit[97]. The judgments of the lower courts are set aside upon proof of good cause being proved[98]. The impact on legal practice is to always put into consideration any triable defences against injustice[99]. This decision has brought about an in-depth understanding of the court’s wide discretion and the required good cause to prove a triable defence[100].
The strengths of the court’s reasoning relate to the reliance on credible and valuable circumstantial evidence put across during corroboration to allow an appeal and set aside judgments of lower courts[101]. There are neither gaps in the analysis nor criticisms attracted by the judgment. The courts applying the Civil Procedure Rules[102] are expected to identify the distinct meanings of its various provisions[103].
CONCLUSION
This judgment demands the courts in Uganda to apply their wide discretion while exercising their jurisdiction on appeal[104]. The service of summons was deemed ineffective and proof of good cause reveals a triable defence for setting aside the lower courts’ judgments[105]. In order to avoid misapplication of the Civil Procedure Rules[106], Judicial officers are encouraged to correctly direct themselves in such circumstances[107].
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCE
List of Cases;
Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005. Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo. (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.). Decided on 21st September 2007
Brooke Bond Liebig (T) Ltd. vs. Mallya (1975) EA 266
St. Aubyn (LM) vs. A.G. (1951) 2 All ER 473
Legislation;
The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended.
The Judicature Act, 1996. Cap. 16. (Uganda).
The Civil Procedure Act, (1929). Cap. 282. (Uganda).
The Civil Procedure Rules, Statutory Instrument 71-1 of 2000. (Uganda).
The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, Statutory Instrument No. 33 of 2019. (Uganda).
Secondary Sources;
The Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary. Ninth Edition.
[1] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 1.
[2] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 1.
[3] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007.
[4] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007.
[5] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007.
[6] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007.
[7] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 2.
[8] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 2.
[9] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 2.
[10] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 2.
[11] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 2.
[12] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 2.
[13] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 2.
[14] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 2.
[15] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 2.
[16] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 3.
[17] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 3.
[18] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 3.
[19] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 3.
[20] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 3.
[21] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 3.
[22] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 3.
[23] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 3.
[24] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 3.
[25] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 3.
[26] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 3.
[27] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 3.
[28] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 3-4.
[29] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 3-4.
[30] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 4.
[31] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 4.
[32] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 4.
[33] Brooke Bond Liebig (T) Ltd. vs. Mallya (1975) EA 266: Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 4.
[34] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 4.
[35] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 4.
[36] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 4.
[37] The Civil Procedure Rules, Statutory Instrument 71-1 of 2000. (Uganda). Order 36 Rule 3, 4 and 11 (then Order 33 Rule 4 and 11): Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 4-5.
[38] The Civil Procedure Rules, Statutory Instrument 71-1 of 2000. (Uganda). Order 30 Rule 3 (then Order 27 Rule 3): Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 5.
[39] The Civil Procedure Rules, Statutory Instrument 71-1 of 2000. (Uganda). Order 36 Rule 11 (then Order 33 Rule 11): Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 5.
[40] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 5.
[41] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 5.
[42] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 5.
[43] The Civil Procedure Rules, Statutory Instrument 71-1 of 2000. (Uganda). Order 30 Rule 2: Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 6.
[44] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 6.
[45] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 6.
[46] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 6.
[47] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 6.
[48] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 6.
[49] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 6.
[50] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 6.
[51] The Civil Procedure Rules, Statutory Instrument 71-1 of 2000. (Uganda). Order 30 Rule 3.
[52] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 7.
[53] The Civil Procedure Rules, Statutory Instrument 71-1 of 2000. (Uganda). Order 30 Rule 6 and 7.
[54] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 7.
[55] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 7.
[56] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 7.
[57] The Civil Procedure Rules, Statutory Instrument 71-1 of 2000. (Uganda). Order 30 Rule 3.
[58] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 7.
[59] The Civil Procedure Rules, Statutory Instrument 71-1 of 2000. (Uganda). Order 30 Rule 3: Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 7.
[60] The Civil Procedure Rules, Statutory Instrument 71-1 of 2000. (Uganda). Order 30 Rule 3: Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 7-8.
[61] The Civil Procedure Rules, Statutory Instrument 71-1 of 2000. (Uganda). Order 30 Rule 3: Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 8.
[62] The Civil Procedure Rules, Statutory Instrument 71-1 of 2000. (Uganda). Order 30 Rule 3.
[63] The Civil Procedure Rules, Statutory Instrument 71-1 of 2000. (Uganda). Order 36 Rule 11.
[64] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 8.
[65] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 8.
[66] The Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary. Ninth Edition. Page 478: Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 8.
[67] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 8.
[68] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 8.
[69] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 8.
[70] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 8.
[71] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 8.
[72] The Civil Procedure Rules, Statutory Instrument 71-1 of 2000. (Uganda).
[73] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 8.
[74] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 8.
[75] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 8.
[76] The Civil Procedure Rules, Statutory Instrument 71-1 of 2000. (Uganda). Order 5 Rule 18: Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 8-9.
[77] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 9.
[78] Pirbhai Lalji vs. Hassanali, (1962) EA 306: Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 9.
[79] St. Aubyn (LM) vs. A.G. (1951) 2 All ER 473, at p.498 Lord Radcliffe: Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 9.
[80] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 9.
[81] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 9.
[82] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 10.
[83] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 10.
[84] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 10.
[85] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 10.
[86] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 10.
[87] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 10.
[88] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 11.
[89] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 11.
[90] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 11.
[91] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 11.
[92] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 10.
[93] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007. Page 11.
[94] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007.
[95] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007.
[96] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended, Article 126(2)(e): The Civil Procedure Act, 1929. Cap. 282. (Uganda). Section 98: The Judicature Act, 1996. Cap. 16. (Uganda). Section 37.
[97] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007.
[98] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007.
[99] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007.
[100] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007.
[101] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007.
[102] The Civil Procedure Rules, Statutory Instrument 71-1 of 2000. (Uganda). Order 30 Rule 3 and Order 36 Rule 11.
[103] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007.
[104] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended, Article 126(2)(e): The Civil Procedure Act, 1929. Cap. 282. (Uganda). Section 98: The Judicature Act, 1996. Cap. 16. (Uganda). Section 37.
[105] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007.
[106] The Civil Procedure Rules, Statutory Instrument 71-1 of 2000. (Uganda).
[107] Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya vs. William Kyobe, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Supreme Court of Uganda at Mengo, (Tsekooko, Karokora, Mulenga, Kanyeihamba and Katureebe JJ.S.C.), Decided on 21st September 2007.
