Ngamita Paroza & 2 oers v Bank Of Uganda (Misc.App. No.695 Of 2002) (Misc.App. No.695 of 2002) [2003] UGHC 86 (14 January 2003)

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang2057\deflangfe2057{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f36\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;} {\f37\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f39\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f40\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f41\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);} {\f42\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f43\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f44\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\trcbpat1\trcfpat1\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{ \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa100\sbauto1\saauto1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid13572442 Normal (Web);}{\s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid13965816 footer;}{\*\cs17 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid13965816 page number;}} {\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\pgptbl {\pgp\ipgp0\itap0\li0\ri0\sb0\sa0}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid1277106\rsid1403090\rsid1408175\rsid1974642\rsid2124937\rsid2900684\rsid3023753\rsid8743413\rsid10762171\rsid11820073\rsid12282705\rsid13572442 \rsid13849172\rsid13965816\rsid13972549\rsid14830933\rsid16525304}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title / }{\author jchemeri}{\operator jchemeri}{\creatim\yr2001\mo1\dy15\hr5\min13}{\revtim\yr2010\mo1\dy11\hr20\min59}{\version3} {\edmins143}{\nofpages7}{\nofwords1902}{\nofchars10846}{\*\company JSI}{\nofcharsws12723}{\vern24689}}\paperw11906\paperh16838 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin \dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1\dgvshow1 \jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot13572442\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid13965816 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid13965816 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid13965816 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid13965816 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \linex0\headery708\footery708\colsx708\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid13972549\sftnbj {\footer \pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\pvpara\phmrg\posxr\posy0\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8743413 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\field{\*\fldinst {\cs17\insrsid13965816 PAGE }}{\fldrslt { \cs17\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid1277106 1}}}{\cs17\insrsid13965816 \par }\pard \s16\ql \li0\ri360\widctlpar\tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin360\lin0\itap0\pararsid13965816 {\insrsid13965816 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1 \widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid10762171 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3023753 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2900684 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1277106 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3023753 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2900684 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA, AT KAMPALA}{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3023753 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 MISC. CIVIL APPL. NO 695 OF 2002}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3023753 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3023753 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1277106 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3023753 }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 ARISING OUT OF HCCS NO.199 OF 2002.}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3023753 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2900684 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3023753\charrsid2900684 1. NGAMITA PAROZA}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid2900684 \line 2. SAMALI}{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2900684 NALUBOWA SSENYONGA] \line 3. MWANJE }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid2900684 SILVEST}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2900684 }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid2900684 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2900684 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::}{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3023753\charrsid2900684 APPLICANTS}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid2900684 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3023753\charrsid2900684 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid2900684 \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3023753\charrsid2900684 Vs.}{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid2900684 \line BANK OF UGANDA \line THE LIQUIDATOR OF \line THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED:::::::::::::::::::::::::::}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2900684 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid2900684 RESPONDENTS}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3023753\charrsid2900684 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 \line }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid3023753 RULING.}{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3023753\charrsid3023753 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 This application, by chamber summons, seeks leave to amend the plaint in civil suit number 199 of 2002. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3023753 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 The original plaint in civil suit number 199 of 2002 was filed in the Civil Registry}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10762171 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 n 4th April,2002. Civil Suit number 199 was instituted against two defendants. They were named in the plaint as below: \par \'931. The Bank of Uganda \line 2. The Liquidator of The Co-operative Bank Limited.\'94}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1408175 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 These chamber summons were}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1408175 presented before court on 8}{\lang1033\langfe2057\super\langnp1033\insrsid1408175\charrsid1408175 th}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1408175 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 November, 2002. The application wa}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10762171 s heard on l0\'94 December, 2002. }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 That was before a scheduling conference}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10762171 could be fixed for Civil Suit }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 No.199 of 2001.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10762171 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 The application is presented under Order 6 rules 18 and 30, of the Civil Procedure Rules. There is a supporting affidavit deponed by the first}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10762171 plaintiff, Mr. Ngamita Paroza. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 The amendment, in respect of which leave is being sought, aims at renaming the defendants in Civil Suit No.199 as below: }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2124937 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 \'931. The Bank of Uganda (as the liquidator of the Co-operative Bank ltd. \line 2. The Co-operative Bank Ltd. (In Liquidation).}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2124937 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 In his submissions learned counsel Mr. R. K. Kasule, Counsel for the applicants, has stated that all the amendment in respect of which leave is being sought is simply to re-describe the second defendant as \'93 }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 Co-operative Bank in Liquidation\'94. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 He explained that the wrong description of the second in the first place, was the result of inadvertence. Mr. Kasule submitted that the amendment was being sought at an early opportunity before the commencement of the trial and, if leave were granted, the amendment would not occasion any prejudice or injustice to the opposite parties since the Bank of Uganda was the main player both as the liquidator of the Co-operative Bank and as the regulatory body.}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2124937 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 Mr. Masembe Kanyerezi, learned counsel for the respondents has raised two distinctive objections to the application. \line The first objection relates to Order 6 rule 18 under which the application has been present by way of chamber summons. Mr. Masembe Kanyerezi argued that Order 6 rule 18 was a wron g procedure for an application which was affecting substituting or adding a new party to the case. In counsel\rquote s view, the correct procedure should have been to present the application under Order I rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. That }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2124937 wou}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2124937\charrsid13965816 ld}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 have been by way of Notice of Motion. }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2124937 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 The second objection relates to the legality of suing Bank of Uganda where the bank is acting as a liquidator. Counsel argued that section 32 (2) (e) of the Financial Institution\rquote s Statute, 1993, prohibited an action against Bank of Uganda where the bank was acting as a liquidator. In Counsel\rquote s view the only proper party to civil suit No.199 of 2002, was the Co-operative Bank in Liquidation. Any amendment seeking to introduce the Bank of Uganda as a party ought to be disallo wed for it would be made contrary to the express statutory law. Counsel undertook to provide this court with a direct authority on the subject. However, he subsequently never did so.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1277106 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 The general principles which guide the court when considering whether an amendment should be allowed or not have been well stated in numerous judgments of the highest courts in Uga}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12282705 nda and East Africa in general. \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 An Amendment sought before the commencement of the hearing of the case to whose pleadings the amendment relates, sh ould be freely allowed if the amendment can be made without prejudice to the other party. There would be no prejudice caused if the other party can be compensated by costs. }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 Eastern Bakery Vs. Castellino [19581 E. A. 461 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 Also see }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 Gaso Transport Service ltd. Vs. Martin Adala Obene, }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid1277106 SCCS}{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 NO. 4 of 1994. }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 \par Where an amendment is not different in quality, from the original cause of action, it should be allowed. }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1277106 Essaji v}{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 s. Solanki [19681 E. A. }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12282705 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 In their commentary upon the Indian Code of Civil Procedure, }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 Citaley }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12282705\charrsid13965816 and}{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 Rao, }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12282705\charrsid12282705 7}{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\super\langnp1033\insrsid12282705\charrsid12282705 th}{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12282705\charrsid12282705 }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 Edition Vol.11 P.2230, }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 the learned authors state that two criteria must be kept in the mind of the court when considering whether a proposed amendment to the pleadings of a party to a suit should or should not be allowed. The court should answer the question, does the amendment put the other party to a disadvantage or cause injury? And, if so, can the disadvantage or injury be compensated by costs? If it can, then the amendment may be allowed. If it cannot, then the amendment must be refused.}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12282705 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1277106 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 With regard to the instant application, it appears to me that it would normally qualify to be easily allowed since court\rquote s leave is being sought at a very early stage before the hearing of the suit has commenced. It neither seeks to introduce a new cause of action nor does it cause any injustice to the opposite party or parties. }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12282705 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 In respect of the first party named as defendant number one, I have carefully examined learned counsel, Mr. Masembe Kanyerezi\rquote s first objection to the application. I am unable to agree with him when he argues that the amendment is in effect a substitution of parties and, therefore, the application should have been by Notice of Motion, under Order I rule 10(2), of the Civil Procedure Rules. It is clear that the original plaint, filed in t his court by the applicant, on 4\rquote April, 2002, named the first defendant as \'93}{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid1277106 The Bank}{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 of Uganda\'94. }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 The amendment now being sought is to rename and qualify the same defendant as The Bank of Uganda (as }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 the Liquidator of The Co-operative Bank Ltd). }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 It appears to me that what the amendment seeks to effect is clearly not to substitute the Bank of Uganda with a new defendant altogether. The amendment merely seeks to define the capacity under which the Bank of Uganda is being sued in the particular suit. Whether t h e Bank of Uganda were sued generally or in its definite capacity as the liquidator of the Co-operative Bank Ltd, the substantive party being sued would remain the Bank of Uganda. There would, in essence, be no addition or substitution of any party to the suit necessitating the invocation of the procedure under Order I rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules as Mr. Masembe Kanyerezi has argued.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12282705 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 \line The second party to the original plaint was named as \'93The }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 liquidator of The Co-operative Bank\'94, }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 in the original plaint. The proposed amendment seeks to re-designate the second defendant as \'93The }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 Cooperative Bank Limited }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 (In liquidation). Mr. Masembe Kanyerezi has argued that the two are different entities and replacing one with the other is not re-defining or re-desig nating but substituting one completely different entity or party for another. He submits that the amendment cannot be allowed under Order 6 rule 18. It can only be by Notice of Motion under Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12282705 \par }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 Prima facie, }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 the liquidator of the Co-operative Bank and the Co-operative bank limited, in liquidation, appear to be different entities. The role of being liquidator of a financial institution seized by the Central Bank under Section 31 of the }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 Financial Institutions Statute, 1993, }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 is given to the Central Bank by Section 32(2) (f) of the same Statute. After the seizure of a financial institution, the Central possesses exclusive powers of management and control of the affairs of the financial institution. The Co-operative Ba nk Limited, as the name itself suggests is a corporate entity. To that extent it appears that the amendment appears to be seeking to introduce a new party which is the Co-operative Bank Limited (in Liquidation). The company was not a party named in the or iginal plaint. Mr. Masembe Kanyerezi\rquote s argument appears to me to be valid to that extent.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13849172 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1277106 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 The pertinent question, however, is whether lack of use of appropriate procedure is fatal to the application. That is whether leave for the proposal amendment should be denied to the applicants on account of the fact that the proposed amendment, in as far as it seeks to rename the second defendant, amounts to an introduction of a new party who was not named in the original plaint and because the application for leave to amend has been made by chamber summons under Order 6 rule 18 and not by Notice of Motion under Order 1 rule 10(2), of the Civil Procedure Rules? }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13849172 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 It seems to me that if this court rejects this application only on account of the two reasons which I have stated above, it would be failing in its duty of ensuring that all parties whose presence before the court are necessary in order to enable the court hear and effectively and completely adjudicate upon and determine all the questions involved in the suit before it. In my humble view, both Order 1 rule 10(2) and Order 6 rule 18 serve a similar purpose. They aim at achieving the same ultimate objective. Under Order I rule 10(2) the court can exercise the jurisdiction upon its own motion. }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13849172 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 Spry J. A, as he then was, in }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13849172 Boyes Vs. G}{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 athure 119691 E. A. 385, } {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 enunciated a very sound principle which appears to me to apply to a situation such as the one pertaining in the instant application with regard to the proposed naming of the second defendant.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13849172 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 That principle is that the mere adoption of a wrong procedure would not \line invalidate the proceedings where: \line (a) it did not go to the question of jurisdiction, or \line (b) no prejudice was caused to the opposite party.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13849172 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 None of those two essential elements pertain in the instant application in as far as I am able to ascertain. Neither does learned counsel for the respondents allege that they do.}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13849172 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 Lastly, it appears to me that even Article 126 (2) (e), of the Constitution of The Republic of Uganda, 1995, would be appropriately inv oked in a situation of this kind. Substantive justice must be administered without undue regard to technicalities.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13849172 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 For those reasons, I must conclude that the entire first objection raised by learned Counsel, Mr. Kanyerezi, fails.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1277106 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 The second objection related to the provisions of Section 32 (2) (e) of the }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 Financial Institutions Statute, 1993. }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 Mr. Masembe Kanyerezi argued, if I got him right, that under that provision of the law the Central Bank cannot be sued, under whatever descriptions. The proposed am endment to sue Bank of Uganda as the liquidator of the Co-operative Bank limited, therefore, would be illegal and should be rejected upon that account.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1277106 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 The provisions of Section 32, of the Financial Institutions Statute, in the relevant parts read as below: \line \'9332. (1) }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 The Central Bank shal}{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1403090 l, upon possessing a financial }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 institution under section 31 of this Statute, be vested with exclusive powers of management and control of the affairs of the financial institution. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 \line (2) }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 The powers referred to in subsection }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid11820073 (I)}{\i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 of this section shall include power to \line e) initiate, defend and conduct, in its name, any action or proceeding to which the financial institution may be a party }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11820073 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 I have, earlier, mentioned the fact that learned counsel for the respondents did not eventually provide the authority which }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1277106\charrsid13965816 is}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 mention}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1277106 ed}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 during his submissions as constituting the basis of this particular submission. \par I have examined the text of the law as set out above. I find nothing to support the submission made by learned counsel before me. On the contrary, the opposite of his submission seems to me to be true. The word \'93defend\'94 used in paragraph (e) of subsection (2) of section 32, of the }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 Financial Institutions Statute, }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 1993, is not restricted to merely defending a suit instituted against the financial institution solely but also includes the Central Bank defending such suit as a co-party to it.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11820073 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 Lastly, Mr. Masembe Kanyerezi prayed that if this court gr ants leave to the plaintiffs, as sought by them through this application, then the costs of the application should be awarded to the defendants. I have examined the submission and found no basis for that prayer. I reject it. This court in its discretion o rders that the }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11820073\charrsid13965816 cost of the application abides}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 by the outcome of Civil Suit No 199 of 2002.}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11820073 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 The final }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11820073\charrsid13965816 orders}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 therefore are: \line (a) Leave is granted to the applicants to amend their plaint in the terms proposed in the amended plaint which was annexed to this application.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1277106 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 (b) The defendants will have 14 days from the delivery of this ruling to adjust their own pleadings should they desire to do so. \par (c) The case is fixed for a scheduling conference on Friday, 14}{\lang1033\langfe2057\super\langnp1033\insrsid1277106\charrsid1277106 th}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1277106 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid2900684 February, 2003 at 10.00 a.m. \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 V. F. MUSOKE-KIBUUKA (JUDGE) \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid2900684 14/1/2003.}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid13572442\charrsid13965816 \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10762171 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14830933\charrsid13965816 \par }}