High Court Clarifies the Use of Originating Summons in Legal Proceedings.

In this case of Namutebi v Nabisere (Originating Summons 4 of 2023) [2024] UGHCLD 65 (13 March 2024), the High Court, presided over by Hon. Justice Naluzze Aisha Batala, provided legal clarity on the use of Originating Summons in legal proceedings.

The Court emphasised that Originating Summons are best suited for straightforward matters, where disputes revolve primarily around legal implications rather than complex factual disputes.

Facts

The Plaintiff, a formerly registered proprietor of Block 29 Plot 1010 Mulago, brought a suit by way of Originating summons to determine

Whether the Plaintiff had a right to sell land comprised on Block 29 Plot 1010 Mulago.
Whether the Defendant have a claim of right as a Kibanja owner of land comprised on Block 29 PAlot 1010 Mulago?
Whether the Plaintiff should continue staying on the land until the grant of letters of administration?

The Defendant in her Affidavit in Reply raised Preliminary objections and counsel for the Defendant further raised three objections which determined the direction of the matter and especially as to whether the matter is competently brought before the Court.

The Main Issue for determination.

1. Whether the matter was competently before the court? Holding

Hon. Justice Naluzze Aisha Batala, in determining the competency of the matter and the preliminary issues raised, observed as follows:

The issues raised in this matter were contentious and not simple.

Citing the authority in JP Nagemi t/a Nagemi & Co. Advocates v Ismail Semakula (OS 8/13), the Court reaffirmed that Originating Summons should be limited to straightforward matters. It was held that Originating Summons is not a procedure suitable for resolving disputed questions of fact or cases requiring considerable amounts of evidence.

Additionally, Justice Batala emphasized that Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Rules is intended to resolve simple matters that do not require extensive investigations. It is only appropriate in cases where there are no substantial disputes of fact, focusing instead on the legal consequences of an agreed set of facts.

The Court reiterated the position in Nakabugo v Serunjogi (1981) HCB 58, which emphasized that Originating Summons are unsuitable for cases involving complex factual disputes necessitating extensive oral evidence.

From the analysis of pleadings and submissions by both parties in the present case, it was evident that the matter at hand was contentious and required a thorough examination of substantial evidence. Therefore, the procedure adopted in this case was deemed inappropriate as it failed to align with the principles outlined under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Act. Significance This ruling is a reminder for legal practitioners and litigants alike, emphasizing the importance of adhering to civil procedural rules and choosing the most appropriate mechanism for approaching the court.

Read the full case below https://ulii.org/akn/ug/judgment/ughcld/2024/65/eng@2024-03-13