Court name
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Judgment date
8 November 2013

Cuthbert v Teso Coach Ltd & 2 Ors (Miscellaneous Application-2013/32) [2013] UGHCCD 146 (08 November 2013);

Cite this case
[2013] UGHCCD 146

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT SOROTI

MA 32 OF 2013  ARISING FROM  CS NO. 6 OF 2012

CUTHBERT JOSEPH OBWANGOR

Suing through an attorney Angela Margret Itinot................                                                                                                                             PLAINTIFF

                                                                                                                                            VERSUS

TESO COACH LTD.......................................                                                                                                                                                      .RESPONDENT/DFENDANT

AND

1.ANGELA MARGRET ITINOT

2. ROSEMARY ATIM

Administrators of the estate of late

Cuthbert  Obwangor.....................................APPLICANTS

 

BEFORE : HON. LADY JUSTICE H. WOLAYO

RULING

In this application, the applicants  Angela Margret Itinot and Rosemary Atim ,  through their advocates M&G Associated seek to substitute the deceased  plaintiff in CS 6 of 2012.

The grounds of the application are contained in the notice of motion as well as the affidavit in support . The main grounds are that the plaintiff passed away on 19.5.2012 and on 19.11.2012, the two applicants were granted letters of administration.

The respondent, through its advocates GP Advocates, filed an affidavit in reply opposing the application. The main ground in opposition is that the applicants’ authority to administer the estate of the deceased was challenged by  Family Division CS 80 of 2013   by Alupo Rose Obwangor and Aruo Francis.

Counsel for the respondent Mr. Anguria  cited  Land Division MA 573 of 2009 arising from CS 532 of 2003, Etima Iddi Veve v Noah Abdallatiff and anor , in support  of his arguments opposing the  application.

I am called upon to determine whether the applicants should be substituted for the deceased plaintiff in light of their being holders of letters of administration and  against the background that the grant is being challenged in the Family Division of the High Court.

I have studied the substantive suit  ( CS 6 of 2012)  between the deceased plaintiff and the respondent company.   The plaint seeks the following remedies:

  1. An order of vacant possession
  2. An order for demolition of unauthorised structures
  3. Payment for arrears of 56, 400,000/
  4. Mesne profits  and general damages.

These remedies, if granted, have far reaching consequences which require a substantive legal representative to take charge of . In view of the remedies sought, the respondent as defendant is entitled to deal with a party who is clothed with full authority to take decisions . A legal representative who is being challenged is not clothed with unchallenged authority.

I find the decision in  Etima Iddi v Noah Abdallatiff(supra)   persuasive.

In the premises, i decline to grant the application sought pending  the disposal of Family division CS 80 of 2013  or until further  orders of this court.

DATED AT SOROTI THIS 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013.

HON. LADY JUSTICE H. WOLAYO