Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 128 views

    John Kibyama Vs Mission & Relief.

    Uploaded by

    Kelly
    This ruling addresses a case between John Kibyami and Mission and Relief Transport Ltd. The plaintiff's counsel applied to amend the particulars of the defendant by removing the word "Limited" from the defendant's name. The defendant's counsel objected, arguing that there were two separate entities - Mission and Relief Transport Ltd (a Ugandan company) and Mission and Relief Transport (a foreign company registered in Uganda). However, the judge reviewed the hire agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, which referred only to "Mission & Relief Transport". Therefore, the inclusion of "Ltd" was deemed a mere misnomer or drafting error. Given there was no element of surprise or change in the intended defendant, the judge allowed

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    John Kibyama Vs Mission & Relief.

    Uploaded by

    Kelly
    128 views3 pages
    This ruling addresses a case between John Kibyami and Mission and Relief Transport Ltd. The plaintiff's counsel applied to amend the particulars of the defendant by removing the word "Limited" from the defendant's name. The defendant's counsel objected, arguing that there were two separate entities - Mission and Relief Transport Ltd (a Ugandan company) and Mission and Relief Transport (a foreign company registered in Uganda). However, the judge reviewed the hire agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, which referred only to "Mission & Relief Transport". Therefore, the inclusion of "Ltd" was deemed a mere misnomer or drafting error. Given there was no element of surprise or change in the intended defendant, the judge allowed

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This ruling addresses a case between John Kibyami and Mission and Relief Transport Ltd. The plaintiff's counsel applied to amend the particulars of the defendant by removing the word "Limited" from the defendant's name. The defendant's counsel objected, arguing that there were two separate entities - Mission and Relief Transport Ltd (a Ugandan company) and Mission and Relief Transport (a foreign company registered in Uganda). However, the judge reviewed the hire agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, which referred only to "Mission & Relief Transport". Therefore, the inclusion of "Ltd" was deemed a mere misnomer or drafting error. Given there was no element of surprise or change in the intended defendant, the judge allowed

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
    128 views3 pages

    John Kibyama Vs Mission & Relief.

    Uploaded by

    Kelly
    This ruling addresses a case between John Kibyami and Mission and Relief Transport Ltd. The plaintiff's counsel applied to amend the particulars of the defendant by removing the word "Limited" from the defendant's name. The defendant's counsel objected, arguing that there were two separate entities - Mission and Relief Transport Ltd (a Ugandan company) and Mission and Relief Transport (a foreign company registered in Uganda). However, the judge reviewed the hire agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, which referred only to "Mission & Relief Transport". Therefore, the inclusion of "Ltd" was deemed a mere misnomer or drafting error. Given there was no element of surprise or change in the intended defendant, the judge allowed

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA


    COMMERCIAL COURT DIVISION

    HCT-00-CC-CS-0236-2006

    JOHN KIBYAMI …………………………….………. …….PLAINTIFF

    VERSUS

    MISSION AND RELIEF TRANSPORT LTD. ………… DEFENDANT

    BEFORE HON. MR. JUSTICE LAMECK N. MUKASA

    RULING:

    This suit was filed against Mission and Relief Transport Ltd, stated in paragraph 2 of the plaint to
    be a Limited Liability Company incorporated in Uganda.

    When the case came up before me for a Scheduling Conference Mr. Suleiman –Musoke
    informed Court that Counsel for the defendant Mr. Daniel Rutiba, had informed him that there
    are two company’s with similar names of the defendant. He therefore applied for an
    adjournment to verify the information. When the case came up again Mr. Musoke applied to
    amend the particulars of the defendant by deleting the word “limited”

    Mr. Rutiba objected to the amendment sought. He argued that M/S Mission and Relief Transport
    Ltd, is a local company incorporated in Uganda while M/s and Missions and Relief Transport is
    a company incorporated in Netherlands only registered in Uganda under section 370, Part x of

    1
    the Companies Act as a Foreign Company carrying on business in Uganda. That the two were
    separate entities. His argument was that by the amendment the plaintiff was substituting the
    foreign company for the Ugandan Company. He therefore prayed that the suit be struck out
    under Order 6 rule 29 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

    The plaintiff’s claim arises from a hire agreement referred to in paragraph 4 (a) of the plaint and
    annexed to the plaint as annexture A. The agreement it is between the plaintiff and Mission &
    Relief Transport. In the signature part of the agreement it is signed for Mission & Relief
    Transport Uganda but with a stamp for Mission and Relief Transport, Great –Lakes Region
    Office P. O. Box 10439, Kampala. Therefore, the plaintiff knew the party whom he was dealing
    with in the agreement which gives rise to this suit as Mission and Relief Transport. The
    existence of another party with a similar name Mission and Relief Transport Ltd was only
    brought to the attention of the plaintiff’s counsel by the defendant’s counsel.

    The circumstances of this case show that the inclusion of the word “Ltd” in the name of the
    defendant was merely an error most probably committed by Counsel since the agreement
    supplied to him as the basis of the plaintiff’s claim was between the plaintiff and Mission and
    Relief Transport. In JB Kohli & Others Vs Bachulal Popatlal (1964) EA 219 it was held that
    where a reasonable man reading all the documents in the proceedings before Court and having
    regard to all the circumstances would entertain no doubt as to the person to be sued it would be a
    case of misnomer. In the circumstances of this case there is no doubt that the defendant, in view
    of the agreement attached to the plaint is Mission and Relief Transport. An error which is a mere
    misnomer can be corrected by amendment. The law as regards amendment of pleadings was
    discussed in detail by Ntabgoba PJ in Edward Seninde Vs Fred Luwaga (1995) IV KALR 149
    where it was held, inter alia, that most importantly an amendment may be allowed at a very late
    stage, where it is necessitated solely by a drafting error and where there is no element of
    surprise. In the instant case the error was a drafting error and there is no element of surprise since
    it was the defendant’s Counsel who pointed out to the plaintiffs Counsel the existence of another
    entity with more or less a similar name.

    2
    I accordingly allow the application to amend the plaint as sought by stricking out the word
    “Limited” from the defendant’s name. Costs shall be in the course of the suit.

    Hon. Mr. Lameck N. Mukasa


    Judge
    6th December, 2006

    You might also like