Civil litigation, understand the subject before studying

Civil litigation, understand the subject before studying

Thursday, September 27, 2018

Ground rules:
• You must understand the subject before you start studying it.
• Deals with a problem i.e. civil disputes like family, torts, commercial and corporate, land transactions.
They all are civil matters solved through litigation i.e. civil litigation.
• Goal is to acquire practical skills to have a successful legal practice. Legal knowledge and skill required by an advocate as provided for under the advocates act as amended. This knowledge has been reduced into a curriculum.
The curriculum has a number of guiding principles.

Guiding Principles
• Day 1 outcomes
These are the areas that the employers expect us to be conversant with once we enter into employment.

These include;
3. Values.
Be professional. They can be imparted in you.
Article by Peter Mulira "What i was not taught at law school." ULS law journal.
How to treat fellow lawyers, how to deal with the public, how to deal with clients.
These shall be imparted in us i.e. time keeping.
Professional Conduct classes’ lecturer enters 10 minutes early.
Whatever is learnt im professional conduct shall apply in all subjects.

2. Skill
Throughout the course you'll be taken through various skills required in civil litigation. Some learnt in class some in peer influence(discuss among yourselves before coming to class.)

1. Knowledge
Legal knowledge acquired from the University i.e. you must be well grounded in the law. That's why you passed pre entry. Reasonable assumption is that you're well grounded in the basic principles of the law. This won't be taught here. You must attend class discussions and actively participate in the discussions.

Criteria for determining professional conduct.
• Active participation in class discussions. You'll be chased out of class
• Decorum. The way you behave will be assessed. Punishment is get out of class and signature is expunged from attendance list. Every session is important.
• In Saturday discussions after being given workshop problem on Friday/Thursday, firm leaders will have responsibility of chairing discussions and sub divide you into smaller groups. They have power to send away persons who don't act professionally.
• The Saturday workshops are supervised.
• Time for Saturday discussions shall be set by firm leaders
• You can't appear for Monday workshops if you have not attended the Saturday discussion.
• When you make presentations in class, the professional advisors will decide who will present.
• In civil litigation it's about talking not receiving.
Professional advisors won't give the answers they'll listen to your presentations.
• You can't address the lecturer while seated. Stand till told to seat, till you finish your submissions.
• You'll be taught in civil litigation how to talk to judicial officers
• Hence day 1 outcomes are achieved. Trial advocacy shall also be applied.
• Use of mobile phones is prohibited. Don't research using mobile phones its prohibited. Use either a laptop or tabs.

Topics To Be Taught
◇6 weeks of legal litigation the entire academic year
◇2 weeks each in term one, term two and term four.
There shall be moots.

Curriculum
Learning outcomes/objectives in every week

Objectives
To appreciate litigation as a whole
To deal with clients
Interviews
Drafting skill
How to commence court action
Documents needed in defending or responding in an action
Making arguments in case you're representing parties

Term 1
Week 1 And 2
• Procedure before legal action and instituting a suit
• Interviewing and conducting clients
• Draft and serve pre action letters
• Drafting pleadings for instituting a civil action
• Drafting relevant defenses
• Critical role of registrar and court registry.
• Procedure for filing and exchanging pleadings
• Instituting procedure Amdt of pleadings
• Mediation process and filing mediation case summaries
• Conducting a scheduling conference in detail
• Setting aside judgment procedure
• Interviewing clients client checklist
• Examination of facts enlisted in an interview
• Drafting
• How suits are instituted; capacity filing fees service summons proof of service etc
• PRE trial proceedings

Term 2
Hearing and post hearing
• Execute and interlocutory applications
• Examining witnesses
• Making submissions
• Examining contents of a judgment
• Extracting orders and decrees
• Modes of execution of decrees
• Role of bailiffs and police people
• Objector proceedings
• Making and processing stay of execution
• Review revision
• Drafting docs concerning hearing and post hearing process

Term 3
Clerkship, May get student practicing certificate

Term 4
Specialized practice and appeals
• Identify grounds for judicial review
• Identifying COA in constitutional matters
• Relevant procedure and docs in handling constitutional process
• Enforcement of fundamental human rights and freedoms
• Pre and postelection remedies
• Appeals
• Drafting memorandum of appeals

NB: All the above involve processes drafting necessary documents i.e. practical in all aspects
Note:
◇Keep a keen eye on what's happening currently in courts
◇Love what you're studying or you'll be bored
◇ Come with counter books
◇ Independence of mind
◇ Respect what your facilitator is giving you
◇ Devote your time to this place
◇Avoid wasting time
◇LDC is not an academic institution. It's a skill development center. You must already have the knowledge.
◇Teamwork and Corporation
◇Consult each other
◇Stop reading case summaries
◇ Read supreme court authorities if possible. Know cases.
◇Prepare
◇Not acceptable for a lawyer to be confused
◇ Practice the right things
◇Don't be stupid.
◇ Learning outcomes come first
◇ whatever is not covered in class research about it yourself

Skills Acquired
• Comprehension (relevant facts)
• Critical analysis
• Synthesis i.e. reason why client comes to you; the solution; the conclusion

Read more

Pre-Trial Judgements And Remedies- Injunctions

Pre-Trial Judgements And Remedies- Injunctions

Monday, September 26, 2016

An injunction is an on order of the court directing a party to the proceedings to refrain from doing a specified act. It is usually granted in cases where monetary compensation will afford no adequate remedy to the injured party.

Interlocutory Injunction

An interlocutory injunction is an injunction that is limited so as to apply only until the final determination by the court of the rights of the parties and accordingly it issues in a form that requires that in the absence of a subsequent order to the contrary it should continue up to but not beyond the final hearing of the proceedings.

An interlocutory injunction is determined from a pending suit and likewise there must be a cause of action to sustain the suit from which the application will be delivered.

The above position was reiterated in the case of Sugar corporation of Uganda ltd v Mohammed Tijani H.C.C.S No.39/1993.

Accordingly, Order 41 rule 1 Civil Procedure Rules provides that:

“Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise:-

(a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged, or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree; or

(b) that the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his or her property with a view to defraud his or her creditors, the court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property as the court thinks fit until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.”

It is imperative to note that a pending suit must be before the same court as it was noted in the case of Mwaine Nyakama & company Advocates V Departed Asians [1987] HCB 91.

The application for the interlocutory relief is not itself a cause of action as the right to the interlocutory relief is also not a cause of action in itself.

Lord Diplock noted in the case of Skina (1979) AC 210 that a right to obtain an interlocutory injunction is not a cause of action. It cannot stand on its own. It is dependent upon there being a per-existing cause of action against the defendant arising out an invasion, actual or threatened by him or her of legal or equitable right of the plaintiff for the enforcement of which the defendant is amenable to the jurisdiction of the court.

At the core of injunctive relief is recognition that monetary damages cannot solve all problems. An injunction may be permanent or it may be temporary. A temporary or an interlocutory injunction is a provisional remedy granted to restrain activity on a temporary basis until the court can make a final decision after trial. It is usually necessary to prove the high likelihood of success upon the merits of one's case and a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction before such an injunction may be granted; otherwise the party may have to wait for trial to obtain a permanent injunction.

The right to obtain an interlocutory injunction is merely auxiliary and incidental to the pre existing cause of action. Therefore, the right to an interlocutory injunction cannot exist in isolation but is always incidental and dependent on the enforcement of a substantive right which normally takes the shape of a cause of action.

General Principles Applicable for the Grant of an Interlocutory injunction.

An injunction will normally be granted to restrain the defendant or plaintiff from acts alleged to be in violation of the plaintiff or defendant’s rights. When deciding as to whether or not to grant an application for an interlocutory injunction, the leading decision is the case of American Cynamide Co. Ltd V Ethicon Ltd (1975) AC 396, which stipulates that the court should as a general rule have regard only to the following criteria:

1. Is there a serious issue to be tried?
2.Are damages an adequate remedy?
3. Where does the balance of convenience lie?
4. Are there any special factors?

It should be noted however that this criteria should be read in the context of the principle that the discretion of the court should not be fettered by laying down any rules which would have the effect of limiting the flexibility of the remedy.

Justice Odoki as he then was, noted in the case of Kiyimba Kaggwa V. Hajji Katende (1985) HCB 43 that the granting of a temporary injunction is an exercise of judicial discretion and the purpose of granting it is to preserve matters in status quo until the question to be investigated in the suit is finally disposed of. Court further noted the conditions for the grant of an interlocutory injunction as being first and foremost that the applicant must show a prima facie case with a probability of success.

Secondly, such injunction will not normally be granted unless the applicant might otherwise suffer irreparable injury which would not adequately be compensated or atoned for by an award of damages.

Thirdly, if the court is in doubt, it will decide an application on the balance of convenience. refer to Robert Kavuma V. Hotel International SCCA No.8/1990

Prima-Facie Case

The applicant must show that he or she has a prima-facie case in the pending suit with a probability of success in that pending case.

However, the use of the term prima-facie is contentious and confusing since the grant of a temporary injunction involves the exercise of granting the same by the use of the discretionary power of the court. It is impossible at the interlocutory stage for court to know the prospects of success of either party and it would only be embarrassing to the court to ultimately try the case with a pre-conceived mind. However, the courts have preferred to use the term serious issue to be tried. This seems a straight forward yardstick in determination of such a case to allow the applicant to benefit from an interlocutory injunction.

Justice Byamugisha as he then was noted in Daniel Mukwaya V. Admin. General HCCS 630/93 that the applicant has to satisfy court that there is a serious question to be investigated and that he has a reasonable chance of succeeding in the main suit. Its open to court to decide that there is a serious question to be tried if the material available at the interlocutory hearing fails to disclose that the plaintiff has any prospect of succeeding in his action for a permanent injunction at the trial. Therefore, a serious question to tried can only arise if there is evidential barking for it. The court at this stage shouldn’t try to resolve conflict of evidence of affidavits as to the facts from which the claims of either party may ultimately depend, not to decide difficult questions of law which call for detailed arguments and mutual consideration. These are matters that have to be dealt with at the trial.

Unless the court takes the view that the claim has no prospect of succeeding, it should go on to consider the balance of convenience and the nature of injury for damages.

Irreparable Injury or Damages.

If the applicant is to suffer irreparable injury, then an injunction ought to be granted. Irreparable injury doesn’t mean physical possibility of repairing the injury but it means that the injury must be substantial or material one, i.e. one that cannot be adequately compensated for in damages. In the case of American Cynamide Co. V Ethicon, Lord Diplock explained that the Court should first consider whether, if a plaintiff were to succeed at the trial in establishing his right for a permanent injunction, would be adequately compensated for the loss as a result of the defendant’s continuing to do what was sought to be enjoyed between the time of application and the time of the trial if the damages in the measure are recoverable, then at court, that would be adequate remedy and the defendant would be in a position to pay for them. Then no interlocutory injunction should be granted however strong the plaintiff’s claim may appear at this stage.

In addition, if on the other hand, damages will not provide an adequate remedy for the plaintiff, in the event of him succeeding at the trial, the court would then consider whether on the contrally if the defendant were to succeed at the trial, he would be adequately compensated under the plaintiffs undertaking as to damages for the loss he would have sustained by being prevented from doing so between the time of application and the time of the trial.

The decision to grant to refuse an interlocutory injunction will cause to whichever party who is unsuccessful in the application some disadvantages which this ultimate success at the trial may show that he ought to have been spared.

The extent to which the disadvantages to each party would be incapable of being compensated in damages in the event of his succeeding at the trial is always a significant factor in assessing where the balance of convenience lies.

Damages will not be adequate under the following circumstances.

Where the defendant would be unable to pay them.

Where the damage is non pecuniary in case of many actions for nuisance.

Where the harm complained of is irreparable e.g. loss of the right to vote.

Where the quantum of damages would be difficult to assess i.e. loss of good will.

Balance of convenience.

Another factor to consider before the grant of an interlocutory injunction is the balance of convenience. Sir Robert Meggary quoted in the case of Caryne V Global Natural Resources P.L.C (1984) 1 ALLER 225.

"It stated that the balance of convenience is a phrase which of course is always used in this type of application. It is if I may say so useful shorthand but in truth, the balance that one is seeking to make is more fundamental, more weighty than mere convenience. I think that it is quite clear from both cases that though the phrase may be well substantiated , the balance of risk of doing an injustice better describes the process involved".

Sir John Donaldson M.R expanded on the same theme in the case of Francome V Mirror Group Newspapers (1984)1 WLR 892.

"I stress once again that we are not at this stage concerned to determine the rights of parties. Our duty is to make such order as is appropriate pending the trial of the action though it is sometimes said that this involves weighing of the balance of convenience, this is an unfortunate expression".

Our business is justice, not convenience. We can and must disregard fanciful claims by either party. Subject to that, we must contemplate the possibility that either party may succeed and must do our best to ensure that nothing occurs pending the trial which will prejudice their right. Since the parties are usually asserting inconsistent claims, this is difficult but we have to do our best. In so doing, we are seeking a balance of justice and not convenience.

Status Quo

If other factors are equally balanced, it’s prudent to take such measures that are calculated to preserve the status quo. Status quo means, simply the existing state of things, before a particular point in time. The most crucial point in determining the status quo is to ascertain the period or the point in time which is to be preserved.

The status quo may mean the existing state of things at the date when the defendant or respondent did the act or the first act which is alleged to have been wrongful or the date when the plaintiff applicant first learned of that act or the date when the summons were issued.

Therefore, the relevant point of time for purposes of the status quo may vary in different cases. In the case of Elisa Musoke V Almada Kezaala (1987) HCB 81, Court noted that the main purpose of granting a temporally injunction is to maintain the status quo and in determining whether or not to maintain the status quo, other circumstances had to be taken into consideration. Where the status quo has changed, then it’s doubtful if the interlocutory injunction will serve any purpose as it may mean preserving the illegality or the breach of the wrongful act. Unless court can clearly reverse the wrong that has been done before hearing the matter which in some cases may involve some hardship to innocent third parties.

In the case of Garden Cortege foods limited V Milk Marketing Board (1984) AC 130, it was noted by court that for the purpose of deciding whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to preserve the status quo, that court should consider the status quo as the state of affairs existing during the period immediately preceding the issue of summons and in respect of a motion for an interlocutory injunction, the period immediately preceding the motion.

An order in the nature of an interlocutory/ interim injunction restrains the respondent only until after a named day or further order in fewer days. This order is granted ex parte pending the hearing of the main application for an interlocutory order. The rationale for this is to ensure that the status quo doesn’t change during the period before the application for temporary injunction is heard. A registrar/ judge or magistrate may grant this interim order.

Procedure

An interim injunction is made by notice of motion accompanied by an affidavit containing the following additional matters. That the facts relied on justified the application being made ex parte and should show that an injunction is necessary and that the matter is urgent. The details of any answer asserted or likely to be asserted by the respondent to the substantive claim. If the respondent learns of the hearing of the ex parte application, he may oppose the application and where an order has been made he may apply ex parte for discharge of variation, before the hearing inter parties.

Vitiating factors.

A party seeking an interlocutory injunction is under the following duties before the application is heard.

Duty of disclosure; 

A party is under a duty to make full and frank disclosure to contracts which are material to the proceedings including those facts which a defendant might have been expected to bring forward in opposition to the injunction.

Material non disclosure by the applicant is a ground for discharging an ex parte injunction without any haring in the merits of the application.

Duty to apply promptly; 

An application for an ex parte interim injunction must be made promptly since its of the essence of such an injunction that it is to be issued only in cases of urgency.

Delay is a relevant factor in interlocutory proceedings as injunction relief. In other words, the applicant should not sleep on his rights.

Fraud and unclean hands: 

The courts will always deny the application for an interlocutory injunction if such application contains an element of fraud or the applicant comes to courts with dirty hands.

An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order, whereby a party is required to do, or to refrain from doing, certain acts. The party that fails to adhere to the injunction faces civil or criminal penalties and may have to pay damages or accept sanctions for failing to follow the court's order. In some cases, breaches of injunctions are considered serious criminal offences that merit arrest and possible prison sentences.

Rationale behind Injunctions

This injunctive power to restore the status quo ante; that is, to make whole again someone whose rights have been violated, is essential to the concept of fairness (equity). For example, money damages would be of scant benefit to a land owner who wished simply to prevent someone from repeatedly trespassing on his land.

Read more

Procedure for applying for bail In Uganda and the posed Challenges

Procedure for applying for bail In Uganda and the posed Challenges

Monday, September 26, 2016

In reference to the law relating to Bail, the general idea in regard to bail is that a person presumed to be innocent and who is entitled to a speedy trial should not be kept behind the bars unnecessarily long before their trial and this is the rationale of Article 23 (6) of the Constitution.’ as per Justice Twinomujuni: in 2004.

Bail in Magistrates Court.

How does one apply for bail in a Magistrate’s court

An application for bail can be made orally by an accused or his or her lawyer/advocate in court. Alternatively it can be made in writing and should be supported by an affidavit. An affidavit is a sworn statement made by someone, setting forth the reasons as to why court should consider granting their application and could be used against him/ her in the courts of law.

What does a Magistrate’s court consider in order to grant bail?

When an application for bail is made by the accused or his lawyer in a Magistrates’ court, certain factors shall be put into consideration by the court on whether or not to grant bail.

These include:

The nature of the offense the accused is charged of. 

The seriousness of the offense and how severe the likely punishment for the offence is. 

The character of the accused, in particular whether the accused is likely to report to Court whenever required. 

Whether the accused has a fixed place of abode (home) within the courts jurisdiction (area of operation or control). 

Whether the accused is likely to interfere with State witnesses. 

What does court require of an accused asking for bail?

Sureties and Security

Who is a surety?

A surety is a person who guarantees to court upon the grant of bail to an accused that the accused will return to court every time he is required.

What should a substantial surety possess?

For a person to be a surety in court, they should possess the following

An introduction letter from the Local Council 1 Chairman of the area where they reside.

A valid identity card indicating their place of work, business or residence, and in the alternative.

A passport or driving permit can also be used for identification.

What is the role and duty of a surety?

A surety has the principal duty of ensuring that the accused does not abscond from justice. The surety therefore has to ensure that the accused regularly appears in court till the conclusion of the case.

What happens if a surety wants to be discharged?

It should be noted that sureties have a right to apply to court to discharge their bond. If this is done, court will order for the arrest of the accused so that he/ she can find other sureties.

What happens if a surety dies?

If a surety dies, their estate is no longer liable and the accused is required to find another surety.

What is Security?

Security is the amount of money paid or property pledged to court by the accused or his/ her surety as a guarantee that person will appear for trial.

What happens if the accused deposits the security required?

Security maybe in form of cash or some other property and court will require this when it is satisfied with the accused’s sureties. 

A receipt called a “General receipt” should always be issued on payment and the accused will use this when claiming a refund of his/ her bail money. This money can only be refunded when the case is completed and if the accused has fully complied with the bail terms. 

The accused may also be required to deposit his/ her passport in court as part of the bail terms.

What happens when the accused fulfills the bail terms?

After complying with the terms of bail, the accused and his sureties will fill and sign the bail form which the Magistrate will sign and seal. 

These forms are then presented to the Prison warders for release of the accused from the court cells immediately, unless held on some other lawful charge.

What happens when the accused fails to fulfill the bail terms?

If bail is granted but the accused fails to comply with the terms, he/ she is remanded till a specified date or until he/ she complies with the terms.

The accused can however be produced in court, before a specified date for purposes of being released on bail if they, their relatives or their lawyer apply for a production warrant.

What happens when a Magistrate’s court refuses to grant bail?

If a lower court denies an accused bail because of the fact that it has no powers to grant bail to such a person, then it shall record its reasons and inform the accused of his right to apply for bail to the High Court. On application by the accused to the High Court, it can order grant of bail for those offences that a Magistrate court is excluded from. 

The High Court can also order the reduction or increase of bail granted under a Magistrate court. Failure of an accused to comply with an order for increased bail can lead to his or her arrest and subsequent committal to prison.

Bail in the High Court

Under what circumstances will High Court grant bail?

The High Court has the power to grant bail to a person accused of the offenses mentioned earlier above that a Magistrate court is excluded from granting bail, or if the accused is tried before it, if he/ she does not prove to court that;

a) Exceptional circumstances justify his or her release on bail.

b) That the accused will not abscond when released on bail.

What amounts to exceptional circumstances?

• Grave illness of the accused certified by a medical officer of the prison or other institution or place where accused is detained, as being incapable of adequate medical treatment while in custody.

• A certificate of No Objection to the grant bail, signed by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

• The infancy or advanced age of the accused.

• What is considered in determining whether the accused will not abscond?

• Whether the accused has a fixed abode (home) within the jurisdiction (area of control) of court or is ordinarily resident outside Uganda?

• Whether the accused has sound securities within the jurisdiction to undertake that he/ she shall comply with conditions of their bail?

• Whether the accused has on previous occasions when released on bail failed to comply with the conditions of his/ her bail?

• Whether there are other charges pending against the accused?

How does one apply for bail in the High Court?

The procedure for applying for bail in the High Court is not very different from that mentioned in the Magistrate courts. Applications to the High Court should strictly be in writing, by Notice of Motion and should be supported by an affidavit. 

The High Court will require substantial sureties, sometimes deposit of a specified sum of money or deposit of important documents like land titles etc. If these conditions are not met then court will refuse to grant bail. It is however advisable for an accused to reapply for bail before the same court he/ she applied the first time, after lapse of some time or if the conditions under which bail was refused have changed.

What is the procedure if an accused has been remanded for a longer period than is required by law?

If an accused person has been remanded in custody before commencement of his/ her trial for 180 days or more in respect of any offence punishable by death or 60 days or more in respect of any other offence, a judge or Magistrate before whom an accused is brought shall release him/ her on bail on their recognizance. At the lapse of this statutory period, the accused or his advocate is supposed to inform the court to which he first appears about his status, and thereafter, the court has no discretion on whether or not to grant the bail, but to just set the terms for the bail.

What happens where the accused has been committed to the High Court?

Committal takes place when an accused who is going to be tried in the High Court is sent for trial by a Magistrate’s court. Where an accused that is on bail is committed for trial to the High Court, the bail automatically lapses and he or she is supposed to make a fresh application to the High Court.

Can an accused apply for bail when appealing his case?

Bail can be granted to a convicted person at any time pending the determination of his/ her appeal. The High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court have powers to grant bail to an appellant except where he/she is sentenced to death. It is however a necessary requirement that the accused should file an appeal in a competent court before he/ she can apply for bail pending appeal.

When will bail pending appeal be considered?

Bail pending appeal will be granted after court has taken into regard exceptional circumstances. These include;

• The likelihood of success of the appeal.

• The likelihood of a delay in hearing the appeal.

• The length of the sentence imposed.

• The complexity of the case.

What are the responsibilities of sureties upon the grant of bail?

• To sign the bail papers.

• To ensure that the accused honours the bail terms.

• To ensure that the accused returns to court whenever called upon to do so.

• To inform court whenever there is a variance or unreasonable conduct on the part of the accused so as to request for a discharge.

What happens upon breach of the bail terms by the accused?

Upon breach of the bail terms, the accused is liable to be arrested and sent toprison, unless he or she shows reasonable cause as to why he or she should not be.

Bail in the Court of Appeal

The Court of appeal is an appellate Court (not court of original jurisdiction) and it hears appeals from the decisions of High Court. When a person is convicted and sentenced by the High Court that person is free to appeal against the decision of High Court in the Court of appeal. The procedure for application for bail is the same as in High Court.

Bail in the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the highest and final court of appeal. When a convicted person fails to secure bail in the Court of appeal he can lodge an appeal in the Supreme Court.

The procedure for application is the same as in High Court.

Challenges posed by the law on bail

Public opinion

The general public has a mentality that when a person is arrested for commission of an offence, he/she should be locked away indefinitely or at least until his case is tried and concluded. Anything short of this amounts to bribery or corruption on the Police or judicial officers’ part to ensure the accused person’s release. This has led to loss of confidence in the judicial system and accounts for most of the mob justice cases. Thus there is a dire need for sensitisation of the public on the law of bail, its application and implications.

Political pressure

The law on bail has equally been misunderstood by politicians who use it as a tool for oppressing their opponents. Often times when a suspect is arrested on charges which have political connotations, his/her right to bail is clouded with political tension and threats to judicial officers.

A case in point is when the black mamba usurped the powers of court, re-arrested and detained a presidential aspirant upon release on bail by the High Court. The public however needs to understand that rights are inherent and not granted by the state, they cannot just be wished away by the government of the day. That is why the Magistrates and Judges before whom the accused persons appear must always exercise their discretion judiciously and grant these people bail on conditions that ensure their return to court contrary to any executive guidelines that they may receive.

Jumping bail

In some cases accused persons released on bail fail to meet the conditions set by court to ensure their return to attend trial. This derails the efforts of the prosecutors and judicial officers and casts doubt on the character of the accused person. That is why the law requires that as soon as the accused person jumps bail or fails to turn up for trial as required by Court, a warrant for his or her arrest is issued and once arrested he/she is detained never to be released on bail again. It is thus important for accused persons to understand that release on bail is not an acquittal and that they must turn up for trial, lead evidence in defense of their cases, receive the judgement and serve the sentence given.

Bail Conditions

The law on bail requires an accused person to fulfill several conditions before being granted bail, including, among others, taking a personal cognizance from him or her, admitting at least two substantial sureties who must know or have a close relationship with the accused person and are duly recommended by the local authorities where they live and are bonded in a sum of money determined by Court. This is to ensure that the accused person shall return to court whenever he or she is called upon to do so. On many occasions the cash bond cannot be raised by the accused especially when they are indigent. Therefore, whereas there is a need by courts to balance the interest of justice, many times these monetary conditions are restrictive on the right to bail for the poor persons.

Read more

Courts’ Interpretation Of The Law On Bail In Uganda

Courts’ Interpretation Of The Law On Bail In Uganda

Saturday, September 26, 2015

The right to bail is a fundamental right that is guaranteed by The constitution. This Constitutional right of an accused person to apply for bail flows from the presumption of innocence as provided for in Article 28(3) (a) of the 1995 Constitution of Uganda, It states that; “An accused person is presumed to be innocent not until proved guilty or until that person has accepted guilt”. It further provides that an accused is entitled to a fair and speedy trial before an independent and an impartial court or a tribunal that is established by law.

The Constitution in this Article recognizes the common law presumption as a fundamental human right or an inherent human right. This therefore means that a person should only lose his or her freedom after he or she has been convicted. Thus in granting bail, courts slightly move away from the strict requirements in the law, and instead are driven more by the need to give maximum effect to the constitutional provisions.

While interpreting the constitutional provisions on bail, Justice Lugayizi Observed In the case of Lahan Yahaya V Uganda. Miscellaneous Application No. 96 of 2005. that “In a case where court is considering whether one has a constitutional right to bail, since one is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, then it would necessarily follow that any court which denies such an accused person bail would be acting unconstitutionally”.

The court therefore settled for the view that bail is a constitutional right which flows from the presumption of innocence under Article 28(3) (c) of the Constitution. This decision has since been followed by similar decisions in agreement. ASimilar decisions was seen in the case of Aliphusadi Matovu V Uganda – Criminal Application No. 15 of 2005; and Dennis Obua V Uganda – Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2005.

Likewise, Article 23(6) (a) of the Constitution provides that “A person is entitled to apply for bail and court may grant that person bail on such conditions as it considers reasonable”. This article has sometimes been interpreted by Courts to mean that Court has discretion (power) to refuse the grant of bail to a person accused of a criminal offence. However Some other courts have argued that this should not be the case and that when court is considering an application for bail, it must bare in it's mind the fact that the applicant has a Constitutional right to bail.

In balancing both views, the Constitutional Court In the petition of Joseph Tumushabe V Attorney General – Constitutional Petition No.6 of 2004. Court held that “When interpreting the Constitution, all the provisions must be read together. Thus if all the provisions of the Constitution are interpreted rightly and not separately, that leaves court with one alternative and that is to release the accused person on bail”. However this release should be on conditions court considers reasonable, which in essence means that the conditions should guarantee the accused person’s return to court to answer the charges against him or her.

In addition, Article 28(1) of the Constitution provides for an accused person’s right to a fair and speedy trial. This is in line with Article 14(1) of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Articles 7 and 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights of 1981. These articles are in line with the legal maxim that “Justice delayed is Justice denied”. In other words, once an accused person is arrested he or she should be charged,tried and either convicted or acquitted within the shortest time possible.

This is because if a speedy trial is not conducted, evidence in support of the accused could be distorted, and this person’s freedom will be restricted yet he might actually be innocent. Remember that the person’s right to liberty is a fundamental human right which should only be restricted upon conviction of that person.

It is also for this reason that Article 23(6) (b) and(c) of the Constitution provides that “if a person is remanded for an offence triable by High Court or a lower court for sixty days or more, or for 180 days or more for a case triable only by High court, then that person shall be released by court on conditions it considers reasonable”. This provision is meant to allow the Police to thoroughly investigate the accusations brought against the accused person and is in line with the provision for a fair and speedy trial. It should however not be misunderstood to mean that all accused persons must first be remanded for those days before they are granted bail. NO. The right to apply for bail commences as soon as the accused person is charged with an offence and the presiding Magistrate or Judge’s duty then is to set conditions that will ensure that person’s return to attend trial.

However, there seems to be other interpretations as to whether bail is a constitutional right. The contention was settled by the Constitutional Court, In Uganda Law Society V Attorney General, 2005 when it decided that, “The right to apply for bail is a constitutional one vested in everyone, although it does not necessarily follow that one is entitled to bail automatically. The court will then have to judiciously exercise its discretion as to whether to grant the accused bail or not”.

The law at the moment therefore is such that whereas all accused persons have a constitutional right to apply for bail, it will be at the discretion of the court to grant the bail or not. More recent decisions seem to suggest that” The test as to whether to grant bail or not should be whether the accused will turn up for trial or not. as seen in the case Uganda V Hussein Akbar Godi – Miscellaneous Application No. 20 of 2009.

It should be remembered that one of the considerations of court before granting bail is whether the accused will not interfere with the witnesses. Before denying bail to an accused on grounds of interference with the prosecution case however, In Uganda V Nadiope and 5 others it was decided by court that the prosecution has to specifically prove that, and court should not act on mere suspicions. If the prosecution fails to prove this, then court should go ahead and grant the accused person bail since bail should not be denied as some form of punishment.

It is also important to note that if court is to set bail terms for the grant of bail, for example, payment of money by the accused, then the money should not be so high as to make it virtually impossible for the accused to pay, nor should it be so low so as to defeat the purpose for which it was asked. Therefore it can be concluded that in exercising its discretion regarding bail, court should always act judiciously and reasonably. As it has been emphasized by some of the decisions passed by judges in some courts, the Constitution is the Supreme law of Uganda and all other laws must conform to its requirements.

Foundation for Human Rights Initiative has also been at the forefront of challenging some of the provisions to do with the constitutionality of pretrial bail. In its petition to the Constitutional Court, the court ruled that the provisions under Section 16 of the TIA- Trial on Indictments Act which called for more days for an accused to spend on pre-trial remand were inconsistent with Article 23 (6) of the Constitution which calls for lesser days and thus were nullified. Similarly provisions of the Magistrates Courts Act under Section 76 of the MCA. which called for more days for pre-trial remand were also nullified on similar grounds. An appeal was made to the Supreme Court challenging other provisions to do with the grant of bail, which did not succeed in the Constitutional court petition. Like Sections 14 (2) and 15 of the TIA. The appeal argues, among others that making an accused wait for the lapse of the statutory period before the grant of bail is unconstitutional.

There are also questions regarding the validity of S.76 of the Magistrates Courts Act which provides for the lapse of bail upon committal and Section 75(2) of the Magistrates courts Act which prohibits the grant of bail by Magistrate courts in some instances. The outcome of this appeal will be crucial in further streamlining this area of bail.

Read more

Adjournments And Prosecutions Of Suits In Uganda

Adjournments And Prosecutions Of Suits In Uganda

Tuesday, September 09, 2014

Under Order 17 rule 1(Civil Procedure Rules), the court may as any stage of the suit if sufficient cause is shown, grant time to the parties, or to any of them, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit. An adjournment is not granted as of right but is only granted for sufficient cause. It involves the exercise of discretion by the court and this must be used judiciously.

An adjournment can be denied if it will occasion an injustice. If an application is vague and half hearted, the trial judge is justified in refusing the adjournment as was held in Birungi Wilbon V Akamba Ug Ltd. S.C.C.A. No. 12/94.

Court can adjourn for any reason which in its discretion is sufficient. If a new matter is raised at the trial which catches a party unaware, an adjournment if applied for should be granted to the party concerned to prepare his or her case in response to the matter. This was held in Ssalongo V Nantegolola 1976 H.C.B. 290.

In Abdala Babib v Harban Singh Rajput [1960] EA 325(U), when the plaintiff’s case came up for hearing his advocate applied for an adjournment on the ground that his client , who lives in Ruanda – Urundi , was for some unexpected reason absent. The defendant objected as his witness had come at a cost of 800/= from great distances, and because the plaintiff had been dilatory. It was held that no sufficient cause had been shown for granting an adjournment and accordingly the application was dismissed. Sheridan, J at. Page 326 said that:

“Under Order 15 rule 1 (equivalent to O.XVII R1) the court may if sufficient cause is shown grant an adjournment. The corresponding Indian provision is order 17 rule 1. In Chitaley and Rao’s Code of Civil Procedure (6th Edition) Vol.2, p.2631 instances are given of what has been held to be a sufficient cause. Here there is no suggestion that the plaintiff has been taken by surprise or was unaware of the hearing date. All that can be said on his behalf is that for some unexplained reason he has failed to communicate with his advocate. Generally his conduct has been dilatory and since the defendant has been granted leave to defend he has shown a lack of zeal in prosecuting his claim. Apart from the fact that it is probably not maintainable in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the absence of a criminal prosecution it would be unfair to penalise the defendant further. No sufficient cause has been shown for granting this application. It is dismissed with the result that the suit is also dismissed with costs.”

The grant of an adjournment is a discretionary power which will not normally be interfered with on appeal. In the case of Mohindra v Mohindra (1953) 20 EACA 56, when the suit came up for hearing before the court of first instance, the appellant asked for an adjournment on the ground that he wished to engage an advocate. He intimated that he wished to call no other witnesses than himself. The trial judge refused the application without giving reasons. On appeal it was held that only on rarest occasions will the appeal court interfere with the discretion of the trial judge as to the adjournment of a trial. Quoting Corzens-Hardy, MR in the case of Sackville West v AG (128 LTJ 265), it was further held that the court of appeal will only interfere where the judge’s decision was such that justice did not result for the exercise of his discretion and he failed to see that such would be the effect of his decision.

Shah & Anor. V Osman Allu 14 EACA 45(K), it was held that the discretion of a court to grant or refuse an adjournment will not be lightly interfered with by an appellate court. An unjudicial or unreasonable exercise of discretion must be shown to have occurred.

Application For An Adjournment

It should be taken after due consideration is made in light of Article 28(1) of the constitution which enjoins the courts to determine civil rights in a speedy way. It should be noted however that an application for an adjournment must be made by counsel before court and adjournments by letter are not adopted under normal circumstances.

Similarly an application for adjournment cannot be made by telephone and in such circumstances, counsel applying should ask another counsel to hold his brief for purposes of an adjournment.

Under Order 17 rule 2(b), where a suit is adjourned generally, either party is at liberty to apply to court to have the case restored to the list. Where no such application is made to the court within twelve months of the last adjournment, the court may give notice to the parties to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed and if no sufficient cause is shown to the court, the suit shall thereby be dismissed (Order 17 rule 2).

The court is empowered under order 17 rule 3 to dispose of the suit in one of the modes provided for in order 9 where the parties or one of them fails to appear on the day on which the hearing of the suit was adjourned. The court can alternatively make such orders as it thinks fit.

Order 17 rule 4 provides that: “Where any party to a suit to whom time has been granted fails to produce his or her evidence, or to cause the attendance of his or her witnesses, or to perform any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, for which time has been allowed, the court may, notwithstanding that default, proceed to decide the suit immediately.”

A suit may be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 rule 5 which provides that: “if the plaintiff does not within eight weeks from the delivery of any defence, or, where a counterclaim is pleaded, then within ten weeks from the delivery of the counterclaim, set down the suit for hearing, then the defendant may either set down the suit for hearing or apply to the court to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution, and on the hearing of the application the court may order the suit to be dismissed accordingly, or may make such other order, and on such terms, as to the court may seem just.”

Under order 17 rule 6, in cases not otherwise provided for, the court may order a suit to be dismissed where no application has been made or no step has been taken by either party with a view to proceeding with the suit. In such a case, the plaintiff may, subject to the law of limitation bring a fresh suit.

In Nyiramakwene v G. Bitiro [1973] HCB 58, the file in this case was submitted to the High Court for directions on the issue of dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution. The suit was filed in the District Registry of the High Court at Mbarara on the 22nd April 1968. On 28th January 1969, the summons was served on Messrs. Mboijana &Co. Advocates who on the same day wrote to the plaintiff’s advocates stating that they had no instructions to act for the defendant. No affidavit of service was filed, nor was an attempt to obtain interlocutory judgment under Order 9 rule 6 in default of appearance and the matter stood without any further steps being taken by the plaintiff or her advocate with a view to proceeding with the suit. Consequently, the District Registrar, on 18th January, 1973 forwarded the file to the High Court for directions regarding the dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution.

It was held that Order 15(now 17) rule 6 enables the court of its own initiative without notice to either party , to dismiss the suit after what was prima facie an inordinate delay of two years. The court relied on the judgment of Russel, J in Pirbhai Lalji & Sons Ltd v Hassanali Devji (1969) EA 440.

Referring to a corresponding provision, the court in the case of Victory Construction Co. V Duggal [1962] EA 697 stated that only a step taken on the record, such as an interlocutory application, could amount to such step as envisaged by rule 6. In this case, the parties had agreed to refer the matter to an arbitrator which attempt had failed and the plaintiff contended that reference of the dispute to arbitration amounted in effect to a “step taken” under rule 6. The court rejected the view that reference to informal arbitration was a step taken with view to “proceeding with the suit”. Although the court in this case did not exercise that discretion, it pointed out that the purpose of rule 6 is to provide the court with administrative machinery whereby to disencumber itself of case records in which the parties appear to have lost interest .

Read more

Trial Process In Civil Proceedings- Scheduling Conference

Trial Process In Civil Proceedings- Scheduling Conference

Wednesday, September 03, 2014

Scheduling Conference
The trial process begins with a scheduling conference . The suit is set down for scheduling where the parties together with their counsel if represented are served with hearing notices from court for scheduling.  They appear before a judge who on a preliminary inquires from the parties if there are any matters or facts on which they agree. The parties then set out those matters on which they do not agree for instance the defendant may be claiming to be a Real Estate holder which the defendant denies. Those points on which the parties differ and on which they desire a decision are listed and made the subject of scheduling.

It may so happen that the facts agreed upon dispose of the matter,  for example ownership or if it is found that there is no lease agreement , and then the court does not have to determine any matter. If there are questions which require the court’s determination, the court will proceed to set down the suit for hearing. It will proceed to appoint a hearing date. This hearing is what is commonly referred to as a trial.

Settlement Of Issues
The trial will begin by settlement of issues, that is, determining the material propositions of law and fact affirmed by one party and denied by the other. These may be issues of law or fact. When issues of law are raised, then the court has to deal with issues of law first. For instance a party may raise the issue of limitation which means that a party is pleading the Limitation Act and the court need not try the other factual issues. If the action is good in law, the court will proceed to determine the issues of fact.  The plaintiff has the right to begin where there are no objections to process.

Calling Of Witnesses
The plaintiff will begin by calling his or her witnesses, presenting his or her evidence for proof in court. That evidence is given by examining witnesses through the examination in chief. Questions are asked of each witness. They should not be leading questions. There should be no hearsay evidence. If one relies on documents, the witnesses should produce the documents to the court. The person competent to adduce the evidence should come up and adduce that evidence.

Having completed the examination in chief, it is the turn of the defendant to cross examine the plaintiff’s witnesses for the purpose of testing their veracity. This will also involve asking questions which bring out facts which have been left from the knowledge of the court. The plaintiff may re-examine his witness to water down facts from cross examination.
The plaintiff on completing his evidence will close his case. If he does not do so the court will order him to do so. It will then be the defendant’s turn to open his defense by calling witnesses to counter the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. In the same way, the defendant chief examines, the plaintiff cross examines and the defendant re-examines.

If the counsel re-examines a witness and he or she is uncooperative, then he may ask court to declare him hostile and then cross examines him. When the defendant closes, the plaintiff opens up by submitting orally or written submissions with the consent of the court. The plaintiff submits on points of law and fact. He raises legal issues and resolves them. He is in essence saying that he has discharged the burden imposed on him and the court should give judgment to him.

That said and done, the defendant also submits. He will submit summarizing a case, making factual and legal submissions. After the defendant’s submission, the plaintiff will exercise his right of reply. Having done so, the parties close their respective cases and that is the end of the hearing process.

Read more

Law Relating To Pre- Trial Detention In Uganda - Paralegal Reference Hand book

Law Relating To Pre- Trial Detention In Uganda - Paralegal Reference Hand book

Friday, August 15, 2014

Pre-trial detention is broadly defined by The Paralegal Reference Hand book, FHRI, 2002, pg 70 as the holding of an accused person on criminal charges in custody (whether in prison or police custody) before trial and decision of court. Once an accused person is arrested and detained in lawful custody, the accused person is referred to as a “detainee”. A person who is detained before trial or before court makes a decision on his/her case is classified as a person on remand.

Reasons for arresting and detaining a person

A person would be arrested for any of the following reasons; Section 21 of the Police Act, Cap 303

• If he/she is accused of having committed an offence or a crime,

• If he/she has committed a crime,

• If he/she has to be presented in court to answer charges against him or her,

• If the police is carrying out investigations against him/her in relation to an offence he/she allegedly committed,

• If he/she attempts to commit a crime,

• If he/she is planning to commit an offence.

Power to arrest

The power to arrest a person is contained in the following laws;

The Criminal Procedure Code Act thus Criminal Procedure Code Act, Cap 116. Which is the major body of law regulating treatment of accused persons? It gives powers of arrest to;

i. Police officers,

ii. Any Magistrate to arrest or direct the arrest of a person who commits a crime in his/her presence within the local limits of his her area of control.

iii. Any private person to arrest a person who commits an offence, or arrest a person he/she reasonably suspects of having committed a felony or major offence.

•The Police Act thus The Police Act, Cap.303 No. 21 of 2000 gives and regulates powers of arrest to Police officers.

• The Local Government Act The Local Government Act, Cap. 243 No.69 of 2000 gives powers of arrest to chiefs.

• Uganda People’s Defense Forces Act thus UPDF Act, No 7 of 2005 in Section 185 gives powers to the public or member of the army to arrest any member of the armed forces committing an offence or who is wanted to answer to charges, or who is accused of being about to commit a crime.

Procedure of arrest and detention

A person becomes a detainee when he or she is either lawfully arrested and is detained in custody or is summoned by Police while conducting investigations into a case. Formal or lawful arrest and detention follows the following procedure;

• Upon receiving a report that an offence has been committed, the Police opens a file and registers the case by giving it a Criminal Register Book number (CRB).

• Police starts investigating the case by taking the statement of the complainant, summoning witnesses to the commission of the offence and the accused person and records their statements.

• If the accused person does not answer to the summons, the Police forward the file to a Magistrate who issues a warrant of arrest. This is a document which instructs the Police to look for the person named therein and arrest him forthwith. The purpose of the warrant of arrest is to ensure that the accused person answers to the charges brought against him or her.

• Upon arrest, the accused person is interrogated or asked questions, produced in court for charging and trial. Police should do this within forty eight (48) hours.

• If by the time of arresting the Police have not finalised their investigations and the offence with which the accused person is charged is a minor offence, the Police can release the accused person on Police Bond pending conclusion of the investigation process. The Police has a discretion to grant or deny an accused person bond if he or she is accused of committing a major offence, but nevertheless, they must produce that person in court within 48 hours of arrest.

• The Police send’s the file to the State Attorney to sanction the charges against the accused person. Sanctioning is an administrative measure by which the Director of Public Prosecutions assesses whether evidence collected by Police is sufficient to sustain the charges brought against an accused person.1

• If on perusal of the file it is established that evidence is insufficient, the Director of Public Prosecutions sends the file back to Police to gather more evidence.

• The accused person is produced in Court, where the Magistrate reads out the offence which the accused person is alleged to have committed and asks him or her to plead. The accused person should tell court whether he/she pleads guilty or not guilty. On doing this the Magistrate remands him/her  unless he/she applies for bail and sets a date for hearing the case.

• If the accused person pleads not guilty, the Magistrate informs him or her of his right to apply for bail. The accused person can apply for bail there and then or be remanded and instruct a lawyer or any other person knowledgeable about the procedure to apply for bail on his/her behalf.

For offences which are only triable by the High Court, the accused is charged in a Magistrate’s court, but he or she is not allowed to plead to the charges. The Magistrate informs him/her about the right to apply for bail in the High Court and remands him/her. The detainee can then file an application for bail at High Court where the Judge hears it and takes a decision on whether to grant or deny him/her bail. When the prosecution finalises its investigations, the accused person is committed to the High Court for trial.

For cases which are triable by the Magistrates court but are not bailable by them for example embezzlement, when the accused person is presented in Court, he/she takes a plea and is remanded. He/She is informed of his/her Right to apply for bail in the High Court which he/she can exercise any time before the trial process is completed.

The right to bail is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 23 (6) of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. Its basis roots from Article 28 which provides that an accused person is to be presumed innocent until he/she is proved or he/she pleads guilty. It further provides that the accused is entitled to a fair and speedy trial before an independent and impartial court or a tribunal which is established by law.

Read more

Civil Procedure I Course outline and Description

Civil Procedure I Course outline and Description

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

1. Course Description
This part of the course will cover pre-trial conduct, commencement of proceedings, issue and service of court process or documents, parties to suits, Cause of action, pleadings and Appearance.

2. Course Objectives
The course is intended to enable the student to draw out the main principles underlying civil litigation and to consider criticisms to the present system.
The subject will be valuable to prospective litigation lawyers. The current position in the legal profession is that no lawyer can enter the world of litigation without the knowledge of the subject’s new principles and the modern emphasis upon human rights in the legal process.

3. Required Readings

TEXT BOOKS
1. SPRY: CIVIL PROCEDURE IN EAST AFRICA
2. SSEKAANA M & S.N. SSEKAANA: Civil Procedure and Practice in Uganda (2008)
3. CHITALEY & RAO: The Code of Civil Procedure
4. NEIL H. ANDREWS: ANDREWS ON CIVIL PROCEDURE (2013)
5. Andrews (Birks ed), ch. 19, vol. 2, Civil Procedure in English Private Law (3rd ed. 2013)
6. LANGAN & HENDERSON: Civil Procedure 3rd Edition
7. MULLA: Mulla’s Code on Civil Procedure
8. HARDWOOD: Odgers on Pleadings and Practice
9. BULLEN & LEAKE: Precedents of Pleading
10. JLOWICZ: On Civil Procedure (2000)
11. KIAPI P.P: Practice Manual Series Civil Procedure Vol. 1, 2,3
Forms and Precedents Vol.2
12. KULOBA R: Judicial Hints on Civil Procedure 2nd Edition (2006)
13. KULOBA R: Summary Judgments
14. SPRY: Equitable Remedies
15. O’HARE J & HILL RN: Civil Litigation 7th Edition (1995)
16. Sir Jack I H: The Reform of Civil Procedure Law and Other Essays on Civil Procedure (1982)
17. Sime S.A: A Practical Approach to Civil Procedure (1994)
18. Halsbury’s Laws of England
19. A Handbook for Magistrates (Revised Edition 2004)
ARTICLES/JOURNALS/PAPERS/REPORTS
1. The Hon. Mr. Justice Lightman: Civil Litigation in the 21st Century (1998) 17 Justice Quarterly 373-394
2. Lord Woolf: Access to Justice; Final Report , HMSO-(Internet)
3. Mohammed Mbabazi: The Jurisprudence of the Interpretation and Application of Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution; A case for desecration of the new Constitution
4. Jacob, The Fabric of English Civil Justice (Hamlyn Lectures, 1986)
5. Jolowicz, (1998) Legal Studies vol. 8, p. 1 ('Comparative Law and the Reform of Civil Procedure')
6. Jolowicz, On Civil Procedure (2000)

LEGISLATION
1. The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda
2. Interpretation Act, Cap.3
3. The Judicature Act, Cap.13
4. The Judicature (Court Fees, Fines and Deposits) Rules SI 13-3
5. The Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11
6. The Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10
7. The Court of Appeal (Judicial Powers of Registrar) Rules SI 1 of 2004
8. The Judicature (Habeas Corpus) Rules SI 13-6
9. The Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 72
10. The Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-3
11. The Magistrates Courts Act, Cap. 13 as amended in 2007
12. The Magistrates Courts (Magisterial Area) Instrument SI 16-1
13. The Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, Cap.79
14. The Civil Procedure(Judicial Review) Rules SI 75 of 2003
15. The Government Proceedings Act, Cap. 77
16. The Civil Procedure (Government Proceedings) Rules SI 77-1
17. The Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, Cap. 72
18. The Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Act 11 of 2000
19. The Limitation Act, Cap. 80
20. The Evidence Act, Cap.6
21. The Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions Act)(Amendment of Schedule 3) Order 2002
22. The Judgments Extension Act, Cap. 12
23. The Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, Cap 9
24. The Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) (General Application ) Order 2002
25. The Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement)(Grenada) Order, 2002
26. The Local Council Courts Act No. 13 of 2006
27. Advocates Act, Cap. 267
28. Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations SI 267-2
29. The Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules SI 267-4
30. The Advocates (Taxation of Costs)(Appeals and References) Regulations SI 267-5
31. Oaths Act, Cap. 19
32. Statutory Declarations Act, Cap.22
4. Course Content
4.1 Course Outline and Content Description

COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS

Preliminary Steps
Meaning of A suit S. 2 Civil Procedure Act (“suit” means all civil proceedings commenced in any manner prescribed)

Notice of Intention to sue (Rule 39 of the Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Cost Rules)
v Wambugu V Public Service Commission [1972]EA 29

Statutory Notice
Suits against government, scheduled corporations and local governments
v Kabandize and 20 Others V Kampala Capital City Authority Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2011*
v Katwe Butego Division LCG V Masaka Municipal Council
v Kampala City Council V Nuliyati [1974] EA 400
v Gulu Municipal Council V Nyeko Gabriel & others [1997]1 KALR 18

Exceptions to the rule on Statutory Notice
§ TEAN V A.G & NEMA Misc. Appln No. 29/2011
§ BATU V TEAN
§ Dr. Rwanyarare & Others V AG HCMA No.85/1993
§ Compare with the recent decision in Kabandize and 20 Others V KCCA (Supra)

Payment of Court fees
v The Judicature (Court fees) Rules
v Order 9 rule 16 and Order 7 rule 11(c)
v Lawrence Muwanga V Steven Kyeyune SCCA No. 12/2001
v UNTA Exports Ltd V Commissioner of Customs (1970) EA 43
v Byabazaire V Mukwano Industries Ltd [2002 2 EA
v Banco Arabe Espanol V Bank of Uganda CACA No. 42 of 1998
v Schwertza V Cunningham (1954) 22 EACA 252

Commencement of Civil Proceedings
S.19 (Every suit shall be instituted in such manner as may be prescribed by rules)
Orders 4, 34, 37 and 38 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Plaint, Summary suit, Petitions, Divorce Causes, Company Causes, Miscellaneous Causes, Originating Summons, Notice of Motion, Chamber Summons and Election Petitions
PETER LE PELLEY: Instructions to file Suits 6 EALJ 67
1. Unta Exports Ltd v Customs [1970] EA 648
2. Musango v Musango [1979] HCB 226
3. Kataramu v Maliya [1992-1993] HCB 161 (no action filed unless fees paid)
4. Banco ArabeEspanol v Bank of Uganda (1996) HCB 12 (fees must be filed at the time of lodging the document. no document is properly filed until fees are paid or provided for by general deposit by an advocate)
5. Schweitzer v Cunningham (1955) 22 EACA 252
6. OnapatoDelaSania v Petra [1970] HCB 21
7. Mansion House Ltd v Wilkinson (1954) 21 EACA
8. Lyagiye v Attorney General [1973] ULR 124
9. Rwakasoro v Attorney General [1982] HCB 40
10. Pamba v CMB [1975] 369
11. Buikwe Coffee Estates v Lutabi [1962] EA 328
12. United Assurance v Attorney General [1995] VI KA LR 109

Issue and Service of Summons
Article 250(2) Constitution (proceedings against by or against Government to be instituted by or against AG)
S.20 Civil Procedure Act (when suit instituted service to be made upon defendant to enter appearance and answer the claim)
Order 5, Order 3rules 3,4 and 5, Order 29 rule 2, Order 30 rule 3, Order 37 rule 9, Order 51
1. Kaur v City Auction Mart [1967] EA 108 (in practice notice of motion is treated as summons and has to be signed by judge and sealed by court)
2. Nakitto& Brothers Ltd v Katumba [1983] HCB 70 (notice of motion falls within meaning of suit. No compliance with order 5 made the application a nullity)
3. Attorney General v Satchu [1960] EA 108 (in the absence of mechanical apparatus rubber stamp can be used instead of a seal)
4. Re Pritched Deceased [1963] All ER 873
5. Kaigana Joy v DaboBoubon [1986] HCB 59
6. OmuchiloErukan v AyubMachiwa [1966] EA 229
7. Donnerbaum v Kurt Kimmollaschek [1966] EA 25
8. EAGEN v Ntende [1979] HCB 227
9. M B Automobiles v Kampala Bus Service [1966] EA 480
10. Lalji v Devji [1962] EA 330
11. ErukanaKavuma v Metha [1960] EA 305
12. Waweru v Kiromo [1962] EA 172
13. Mathias Kanimba v Suryan Kanji Patel [1973] HCB 185
14. Otwani v BukenyaSsalongo [1976] HCB 62/337
15. Kudanga v NIC [1977] HCB 243
16. ZakaliyaKiggundu v Leo Kasujja [1971] HCB 164
17. Ijjala v Energo Project [1988-1990] HCB 164
18. Magera v Kakungulu [1976] HCB 289
19. EsezaNamirembe v Musa Kizito [1973] 413
20. NarijibhaiPrabhudas v Standard Bank [1968] EA 670

PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS

S. 59 Civil Procedure Act (Interpleader)
Order 1, Order 29, Order 30, Order 31, Order 32 and Order 33 Civil Procedure Rules
1. Komax v Landells (1848) 136 ER 1374
2. Kabyesiza v Gold Trust Bank HCCS No 32 of 1998
3. Oriental Insurance Brokers Ltd v Transocean (U) Ltd HCCS No. 230 of 1993
4. Jingo v Kabangiza [1974] HCB 294
6. Bibonde v Waiswa [1974] HCB 120
7. Kabatore v Namatovu [1975] 159
8. Nassozi v Water Resources Development Ltd [1978] HCB 210
9. Musoke v Uganda Cooperative Savings [1978] HCB 189
10. Masling v Motor Hiring Company [1919] KB 538
11. Rhodes v Swithen Bank (1889) 22 QBD 577
12. Dyke v Stehens 91885) 30 Ch D189
13. Kaggwa v Attorney General [1981] HCB 333
14. Wasswa v Senteza [1977] HCB 88
15. Porter v Porter (1888) 37 Ch D 420
16. Ashley v Taylor (1887) 10 Ch D 768
17. Porter v Freudenberg [1915] 1 KB 857
18. Schafennus v Golberg [1916] 1 KB 284
19. Bugerere Coffee Growers v Sebadduka [1970] EA
20. Bank of Ethiopia v National Bank of Egypt and Liguori (1937) Ch 513

Representative Action

Order 1 rule 8, Order 31, Order 7 rule 4 CPR
1. Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1964] QB 601
2. Kamouh v EAI (International ) Ltd [1980] 1 QB 199
3. Ssonko v Aluma [1971] EA 443
4. Makula International v Nsubuga [1982] HCB 85
5. Campbell v Thompson [1953] 1 All ER 831
6. Smith v Cardiff Corporation [1954] 1 QB 210
7. Paulo Kanyima v Rugoora [1982] HCB 33
8. Michael Otim v Okuza CACA No. 51 of 1985
9. Johnson v Moss [1969] EA 654
10. Danda v Ahmed 13 EACA 1
11. J.J. Campos v De Souza 15 KLR 86
12 Wise v Perpetual Trustee Co. [1903] AC 139
13. London Association for Protection of Trade v Greenlands Ltd [1916] 2 AC 15
14. Market &Co. V Knoight S.S. Co. [1910] 2 KB 1021
Joinder of Parties
Order 1 rules 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 Civil Procedure Rules
Halsbury’s Laws of England Vol.30 Pg. 330 para. 565
MULLA: Code of Civil Procedure 12th Edition Vol. 1 Pg. 543

1. Uganda General Trading Co. Ltd v Jinja Cash Stores Ltd [1965] EA 469
2. Bank of India Ltd v Shah [1965] EA 18
3. SempaMbabali v Kidza [1985] HCB 46
4. Batemuka v Anywar [1987] HCB 71
5. Lawrence M Kyazze v Eunice Busingye [1992] IV Ka LR 55
6. YowanaKawere v Lunyo Estates Ltd [1959] EA 319
7. Allah Ditta Qureshi v Patel (1951) 18 EACA 1
8. Lombard Banking Kenya Ltd v Shah BaichandBhagwanyi [1960] EA 969
9. Pathak v Mrekwe [1964] EA 24
10. Ponjo v Toro African Bus Co. [1980] HCB 52
11. Fernandes v Kara Arjan&Sons [1961] EA 693
12. Kanani v Desai [1954] ULR 135
13. Kaaso v AG [1975] HCB 194
14. Makula International v Cardinal Nsubuga [1982] HCB 194
15. Barclays Bank v Patel [1959] EA 219
16. Burstall v Beyfus (1884) 26 ChD 35
17. Norwich Pharmaacal Co. V Customs &Excise Commissioners [1973] 2 All ER 943
18. Ellis v Kerr [1910] 1 ChD 529
19. Hardie Line Ltd v Chilterm [1928] 1KB 563
20. Bennets& Co. V Mcil Wraith & Co. [1896] 2QBD 404
21. Parr v Snell [1923] 1KB 1

Third Parties

Order 1 rule 14 Civil Procedure Rules
Law Reform Miscellaneous Provisions Act
1. Baxter v France [1922] All ER 270
2. Standard Securities v Hubbard, Telensurance Third Party [1967] Ch 1056
3. Nettleingham& Co. V Powell & Co. [1931] KB 1
4. Overseas Touring Co. (road service) Ltd v African Produce Agency 1949 Ltd [1962] EA 190
5. Sango Bay Estates Ltd v Dresdner Bank [1971] EA 30
6. Wynne v Tempest [1897] 1 Ch 10
7. Tafes, Walusimbi v AG of Uganda [1959] EA 233
8. Kaggwa v L. Constaperavia [1963] EA 213
9. Transami (U) Ltd v Transocean (U) Ltd [1991] HCB 59
10. Slott v West Yorkshire Road Car Co. Home Bakeries [1971] 3 All ER 534
11. Slade and Kempton (Jewellery) Ltd v N. Kayman [1969] 3 All ER 786
12. Swansia Shipping Co. V QuahBengkee [1924] AC 177
13. Easter Shipping Co. V Duncan [1876] 1QB 644
14. Obongo v UTC [1975] HCB 118
15. East Mengo Growers Cooperative Union Ltd v Nile [1985] HCB
Intervention by Amicus Curiae
22. Re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd [1977] HCB 311
23. Jones v National Coal Board [1957] 2 QB 55
24. Kayondo v AG (1987)
Vicarious Liability
1. Mubiru v Byensiba [1985] HCB 106
2. JovelynBarugahare v AG SCCA 28 of 1993
3. Muwonge v AG [1967] EA 17
4. Namwandu v AG [1970] EA
5. Uganda American Insurance v Ruganzu SCCA 10 of 1992
6. Canadian Pacific v Lockhart [1942] 2All ER 464

PLEADINGS

Order 6 CPR
(Plaint, Defence& Counter Claim, Reply) Ss. 2, 19 & 20 CPR, Order 6,7& 8 CPR
Sir Jack Jacob “The Present Importance of Pleadings” 2-1960 Current Law Problems
ODGERS’ Principles of Pleading and Practice Chap. 6
BULLEN AND LEAKE AND JACOB, Precedents of Pleadings 11th Edition 1975
S. THANAWALL: Determining the Subject for Decision 10 EALJ 41
1. Kasule v Makerere University [1975] HCB 376 at 378
2. Talikuta v Nakendo [1979] HCB 276
3. PainetoMubiru v UCB [1971] 1ULR 144
4. Philips v Philips [1878] 4 QB 127 at 139
5. Busuti v Busoga District Administration [1971] 1 ULR 179
6. Mutongole v Nytil [1971] 1 ULR 179
7. Acar& Others v AcarAliro [1982] HCB 60
8. Lever Bros Ltd v Bell [1931] 1 KB 357
9. Mbarara Coffee Curing v Grindlays [1975] HCB 57

PLAINT
Order 7 CPR
1. Ghella M Shah v Abdullah [1962] EA 765
2. Mutungi v Kabuchi [1966] EA 454
3. Letang v Copper [1965] 1 qb 232 (Diplock J at 242)
4. SempaMbabali v K. Kidza [1985] hcb 46
5. Auto Grage v Motokov (no.3) [1973] EA 541
7. Sullivan v Ali Mohammed Osman [1970] EA 476
8. Odd Jobs v Mubia [1970] EA 476
9. Libyan Arab Bank v Intepco Ltd [1985] HCB 73
10. MikidadiKawesa v AG [1973] 1 ULR 21 [1973] HCB 114
11. DhanjiRamji v Rambhai& Co. (U) Ltd [1970] EA 515
12. Bamuwayire v AG [1973] HCB 89
13. Birikwate v Kilembe Mines [1976] HCB 89
14. Acar v AcarAliro [1982] HCB 60
15. Ali Mustafa v Singo Bus Co. [1975] HCB 99
16. Nagokno v Sir Charles Tahaba [1976] hcb 99
17. Shap v Holdworth [1876] 3Ch 673
18. YafesiKatimbo v Grindlays Bank [1973] HCB
19. Nyandoi v EA Railways Corporation [1974] HCB 122
20. Lukyamuzi v House Tenant Agencies Ltd [1983] HCB 75
21. EruniyaEbyetu v Gusberit [1985] HCB 63
22. Mrs. Kazoora v AG [1973] HCB 115
23. EAGEN Co Ltd v Standard Bank HCCS 888 of 1971
24. Bruce v Oldhams Press Ltd [1936] 1KB 697
25. Bukenya v AG [1972] EA 326
26. Cookie & Films Ltd v Speidel [1961] EA 1125 at 1129
27. Plato Films Ltd v Speidel [1961] EA 1090 at 1131
28. Lalji v MagnalalaPurshotem [1973] HCB at 142
29. WanumeKibeedi v The Citizen & Fad
Particulars of Special Damages
1. Kasule v Makerere University [1975] HCB 376
2. Geilla Shah v Abdullah [1962] EA 765
3. Semutima v Kaddu [1976] HCB 15
4. Plotti v Acacia Co. [1959] EA 248
5. Kahigiriza v Sezi
6. Take Me Home v Apollo Construction
7. Kisige v MuzakamiBatolewo [1981] HCB 67
Written Statement of Defence

Order 8 CPR
1. Kanji David Damdan [1934] EA
2. JamadasSodha v Gordhandas 7 ILR 7
3. Sengendo v AG [1971] HCB 304
4. Bitaitan v Kananura [1977] HCB 34
5. Uganda Wholesalers v Impex House [1971] HCB 245
6. FazalHace v Singh 19 KLR 23
7. Mapeera Trading Co. V Semwanje [1973] HCB 65
8. Talikuta v Nakendo [1979] HCB
9. Posts & Telecoms v TerrazioPaviors (1973) EA 344
Reply and Departure
Order 6 rule 6
1. Wrghtson Cooks [1908] 1 Ch
2. Kahigiriza v Sezi
3. Uganda Wholesalers Ltd v Impex House Ltd [1971] 245
4. Moses Katuramu v AG hcb 39
Denial
Joshi v Uganda Sugar Factory Ltd [1968] EA 570

AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS

Order 6 rule 19
1. Eastern Bakery v Castelino [1958] EA 461
2. General Manager & HV Theirstein [1968] EA 354
3. Roe v Kavies [1876] ChD 729 at 733
4. Kasolo v Nile Bus Service Co. [1979] HCB 17
5. KalodiaNambi v Bunyoro General Merchants [1974] HCB 124
6. Kapkwata Saw Mills v Universal Plumbing CACA No. 5 of 1984
7. Talikuta v Nakendo [1979] HCB 276
8. Balikurungi v AG [1976] HCB 346
9. Uganda Tanicare Ltd v MB Patel [1971] HCB 78
10. ShokataliLalji v Purshotam [1973] 6 HCB 142
11. Nzirane v Lukwago [1971] HCB 75
12. Marshal v London Passenger Transport Board [1936] 3 All ER 83
13. Wasswa v Uganda Rayon Textiles [1982] HCB 142
14. Baker v Medway Building and Supplies Ltd [1958] 3 All ER 540
15. Nsereko v Lubega [1982] HCB 51
16. Birikwate v Kilembe Mines [1976] HCB
17. British India General Insurance Co. Ltd v Parmar& Co. [1966] EA 172
18. D.D. Bawa v Singh [1961] EA 282
19. Gaso Transport v AdalaObene SCCA No. 4 of 1994
20. Lucy v Heney [1970] 1 QB 893
21. CMB V Frank Kizito [1992-93] HCB 175
22. Sebunya v UCB [1992-93] HCB 224

Unpleaded Issues
1. Kaliwa&Bikorwenda v UTC [1978] HCB 316
2. Nkalubo v Kibirige [1973] EA 102
3. Plotti v The Acacia Co. Ltd [1959] EA 248
4. Kahigiriza v Sezi [1982] HCB 148
5. Damji v Rambhai [1970] EA 515
6. Shah v Patel & Others [1961] EA 297
7. Odd Jobs v Mubia [1970] EA 476
8. Take Me Home Ltd v Apollo Construction [1981] HCB 43
9. Mbarara Coffee Curing Works Ltd [1975] HCB 57

CAUSE OF ACTION
1. Auto Garage v Motokov [1971] EA 314
2. SsempaMbabali v Kiiza [1985] HCB
3. Kayondo v AG 1987
4. Cooke v Gill [1873] LR 8 CP 107
5. Uganda Aluminium Ltd v RestutaTwinomugisha CACA No. 22 of 2000
6. Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina SCCA No. 2 of 2001
7. Kapeeka Coffee Works Ltd v NPART caca No. 3 of 2000
8. Ali Mustafa v Sango Bay Bus Co. [1975] HCB 93

Joinder of Causes of Action
Order 1 rules 2,5,6
1. Christopher Kayoboke v Amos Agaba HCCS No. 630 of 1991
2. Bolton v Salim Khambi [1958] EA 360
3. Sacahain Corporation Ltd v Wild [1903] 1ChD 365
4. Re Martin (1882) 20 ChD 365
5. William v Hunt [1905] 1 KB 512
6. Godrei, Foncard& Sons v Sinclair [1916-17] All ER 898
7. Kamunye v Pioncer General Assurance Society Ltd [1971] EA 263
8. Semakula v Mugala [1979] HCB 90
9. West Leigh Colliery Co. Ltd v Tunn, CliffeHompson Ltd [1904-07] All ER 189
10. Isaac & Sons v Salsbstein [1916-17] All ER 386
11. Margison v Blackburn Borough Council [1939] All ER 272

Consolidation of Actions/Test Suits
Order 11, Order 29 rule 1
1. YowanaAkirod v FilipoMalinga [1992-93] HCB 91
2. Kawoya v Tumpeco [1974] HCB 68
3. Amos Mugisha v DAPCB [1990] Ka LR 38
4. Karsan v Harman SirighBhogal (1953) 20 EACA 74
5. TeopistaKyebitama v DamyanoBatuma [1976] HCB 276
6. Stumberg v Portgieter [1970] EA 323
7. Hearly v Waddington & Sons Ltd [1954] All ER 861
8. Martin v Martin & Co [1897] 1 QB 429
9. Kiva Mukuteesa Consumers v Ssebugwawo [1986] HCB 61
10. Amos v Chadwick (1887) 9 Ch D 459
11. Allen v Water’s & Co. [1935] 1QB 367
12. Surrendra Overseas Ltd v Government of Sri Lanka [1977] 1WLR 565
13. Kirby v Leather [1965] 2QB 367
14. Parnell v Roche [1927] 2Ch 142
15. Spencer v Hemmerde [1922] AC 507
16. Busch v Stevens [1963] 1QB
17. Wilberforce John v Sezi Wako CACA No. 1 of 1998

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS
Limitation Act, Cap. 80
S.8 (2) Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap. 74
Interpretation Act S.34
Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2000
1. Charles Mpiima v Attorney General HCCS No. 980 of 1990 [1990-91] 2Ka LR 54
2. Hilton v Sulton Steam Laundry [1946] 1 KB 1
3. Thomson v Lord Clan Morris [1900] 1Ch 718
4. Re Russo Asiatic Bank [1934] Ch 720
5. MusurusBey v Gadban [1894] 2QB 352
6. Groom v Crocker [1939] 1 KB 194
7. Bagot v Stevens, Scalan& Co. Ltd [1966] 1 QB 197
8. Auto Garage v Motokov [1971] EA 514
9. Arnold v Central Electricity Generating Board [1988] AC 288
10. Miramago v Attorney General [1979] HCB 24
11. SayikwoMuroma v YovanKuko [1985] HCB 68
12. Radcliff v Bartholomew [1892] QB 161
13. Bulenzi V Wandera [1990-91] 1KA LR 107
14. Mugabi v Nytil [1992-93] HCB 227
15. JoweriaNamaganda v AG [1996] 2 kalr 83
16. EridadOtabong v AG SCCANo. 6 of 1990
17. National Pharmacy Ltd v KCC CACA No. 29 of 1979
18. Kampala Bottlers v Damanico (U) Ltd SCCA No. 22 of 1992
19. Peter Mangeni t/a Makerere Institute of Commerce v DAPCB SCCA No. 13 of 1995
Limitations Against Government
1. EridadOtabong v AG SCCANo. 6 of 1990
2. National Pharmacy Ltd v KCC [1979] 256
3. Peco Arts Inc. v Hazlic Gallery Ltd [1983] 1WLR 1315

APPEARANCE AND RECOGNISED AGENTS

S.20 CPA
Order 3 CPR
1. Beliram v Salkand (1954) KLR 28
2. EAP&TC v TerrazoPaviours [1973] EA 344
3. EA Roofing Co. Ltd v Pandit (1954) 27 KLR 86
4. Shangara v Farm Vehicles [1969] EA 588
5. Kisembo v Ogengo [1970] EA 96
6. Nassanga v Nanyonga [1977] HCB 319
7. Kawooya v Naava [1975] HCB 314
8. KyobeSenyange v Naks [1980] HCB 31
9. Bitaitan v Kananura [1977] HCB 34
10. Lalji v agnalal [1973] HCB 142
11. Sebugulu v Katunda [1979] HCB 46
12. Sebunya v AG [1980] HCB

4.2 Weekly Schedule

Week Topic Required Reading Assignments
1 Commencement of proceedings
1. Anthony J Draper: Corruptions in the Administration of Justice: Bentham’s Critique of Civil Procedure 1806-1811
2. SSEKAANA M & S.N. SSEKAANA: Civil Procedure and Practice in Uganda (2008)
3. For cases and Statutory provisions, refer to the course outline above.
2 Issue and Service of Summons
1. SSEKAANA M & S.N. SSEKAANA: Civil Procedure and Practice in Uganda (2008)
2. For cases and Statutory provisions, refer to the course outline above.
3 TO 4 Parties to civil actions
1. SSEKAANA M & S.N. SSEKAANA: Civil Procedure and Practice in Uganda (2008)
2. For cases and Statutory provisions, refer to the course outline above.
3. S. 59 Civil Procedure Act
4. Order 1,29,30,31,32

5 Interpleader Order 34 CPR

6TO 7 pleadings
1. SSEKAANA M & S.N. SSEKAANA: Civil Procedure and Practice in Uganda (2008)
2. Order 6, 7 and 8 CPR
3. For cases and Statutory provisions, refer to the course outline above.

8 Cause of action
1. SSEKAANA M & S.N. SSEKAANA: Civil Procedure and Practice in Uganda (2008)
2. For cases and Statutory provisions, refer to the course outline above.
3. Order 1 rules 2,5,6 CPR
4. Order 2 rule 2,4,7,8 CPR
9 Consolidation and Test Suits Order 11, Order 29 rule 1

10 Limitation of actions
1. SSEKAANA M & S.N. SSEKAANA: Civil Procedure and Practice in Uganda (2008)
2. Limitation Act, Cap. 80, S.8 (2) Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap. 74, Interpretation Act S.34, Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2000
3. For cases and other Statutory provisions, refer to the course outline above.

11 Appearance and Recognised Agents
Order 3 CPR
Cases on course outline above

12 Revision
4.3 Assignment Explanations
Civil Procedure is going to be a writing intensive course for Fourth Year students. Each stream will be separated into smaller classes in order to provide the students with more intensive oversight and feedback in the tutorial sections.
The tutorial assistants will develop multiple writing assignments that will be the basis of the coursework mark in the course. Students will not be allowed to conduct group work. Thus the tutorial assistants will be creating multiple assignments.

7. Bibliography
See Required Readings Above

Read more