Oido Batholomew and Others v Okware and Another (Miscellaneous Application 30 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 988 (10 June 2024)

## **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT TORORO**

## **MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO 0030 OF 2024**

## **[ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO 023 OF 2023]**

# **OIDO BATHOLOMEW AND OTHERS …………………………... APPLICANTS VERSUS OKWARE JOHN AND ANOTHER …………………………..... RESPONDENTS**

## **BEFORE: HON. DR. JUSTICE HENRY I KAWESA**

## **RULING.**

The Applicants who claim an interest in the suit land brought this Application by Notice of Motion against the Respondents under **Order 1 r10 (2) and Order 52 r. 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules S.1 71-1 and Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 and Section 33 of the Judicature Act Cap 13** seeking for orders that;

- 1. The 1st to the 50th Applicants be added as plaintiffs in **Civil Suit HCCS NO 023/024** and the plaint and summons be amended and served on the Respondents/Defendants. - 2. Costs to be provided for.

The grounds giving rise to the application are laid out in the body of the motion and the supporting affidavits filed by Oido Bartholomew.

Though served, the Respondents did not file any affidavit in reply to challenge the application. When the matter came up for hearing counsel for the Respondents appeared and informed Court of their desire to argue points of law and to do so by written submissions. This Court gave the parties a schedule to file written submissions which period lapsed before the Respondents filed in any submissions.

The application remained unchallenged and I do hereby determine the same as follows.

#### **The law**

This Court is empowered under **Order I rule I of the Civil Procedure Rules S.1 71- 1** to join parties who may have a claim or relief on the subject matter under issue. **Order I rule 10(2) Of the Civil Procedure Rules S.1 71-1** provides that:

**'the Court may at any stage of the proceedings either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or Defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or Defendant, whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to make the Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, be added**'.

The procedure for bringing such an application is provided for under **Order.1, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules**. Clearly, under **Order.1, Rule 10(2)**; not only can the parties avail themselves of the provisions of the rule but the Court itself can on its own motion join any party as plaintiff or Defendant if in Court 's opinion such joinder would facilitate effectively and completely the determination of the suit. (*See*: *Kololo Curing Co. Ltd. vs West Mengo Co-op Union Ltd. [1981/ IICB 60)* It is important to note that adding or striking off a party to pleadings, whether on application of the parties or on Court 's own motion, is in the discretion of Court. Like all discretion, however, it must be exercised judiciously based on sound principles.

### (*See*: *Yahaya Kariisa vs. Attorney General& Anor, S. C. C. A. No. 7 of 1994 [1997/ IICB*

*29*); for a party to be joined on ground that their presence is necessary for the effective and complete settlement of all questions involved in the suit, it is necessary to show either that the orders sought would legally affect the interest of that person and that it is desirable to have that person joined to avoid multiplicity of suits, or that that person could not effectually set up a desired defense unless that person was joined or an order made that would bind that other person. (*Departed Asians Property Custodian Board vs. Jaffer brothers Ltd [1999/ l. E. A 55*).

Under **Section 33 of The Judicature Act Cap 13**, Court has powers to grant remedies so that as far as possible all matters in controversy between the panics are completely and finally determined and all multiplicities of legal proceedings concerning any of the matters is avoided.

In the instant case, the Applicants seek to be joined as plaintiffs to a matter which affects their interest in the land to which they hold interest as joint owners with the Respondents, yet they have been left out of the settlements reached in Court as between the parties in **CS No.022/23** to their detriment, hence the plea to be joined as parties.

The law is to the effect that when a suit has been filed, the trial Court becomes *dominus litis* and it assumes the duty and responsibility to ensure that the proceedings conform to good practice and are in tow with the justice of the case by joining, either as plaintiffs or Defendants, all persons who may be entitled to or who claim some share or interest in the subject matter of the suit or may likely be affected by results if they had not already been made parties.

I agree with counsel for the Applicants in his submission that this is a proper case for the Court to assume that responsibility by allowing the application.

I laving considered the application, I hereby grant the same with orders that Applicants be added as parties (Plaintiffs) in **Civil Suit No. 023 of 2023** and the plaint be accordingly amended.

Costs allowed to the Applicants.

I so order.

Signed

**JUDGE**

In the presence Of