Doreen Adengo V Priscilla Namwanje H.C.C.A No. 123 of 2019.

5th Jan 2021 12:02:10 Tibugwisa Damalie

Doreen Adengo V Priscilla Namwanje H.C.C.A No. 123 of 2019.

Brief facts;

Ms. Doreen Adengo being aggrieved by the decision of the Architects Disciplinary Committee directing her to pay compensation to Ms. Priscilla Namwanje and a fine of one million shillings only for professional misconduct appealed to the High Court under S.20 of the Architect Registration of Act Cap 269 against the entire decision of the Disciplinary Committee.

Our Ms. Damalie Tibugwisa represented the Respondent Priscilla Namwanje. When the matter came up for hearing, she raised a preliminary point of law that,

 

• The petition contravenes the provisions of S.20 of the Architects Registration Act in as far as the petition was signed by Counsel for the Petitioner yet the Act provided for the petition to be in writing under the hand writing of the Architect or complainant.

Held

• Where one rule of court is expressed in general terms and another on the same subject is specific, the specific rule will prevail.

• Order 3 rule 1 of the CPR provides that except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, any application to be made or done by a party maybe done by the party in person or through his/ her recognized agent.

• The Architects Registration Act provides that a petition by a party dissatisfied with the decision of the disciplinary committee must be under hand of the Architect or complainant.

• A litigant who relies on the provisions of Article126(2) (e) must satisfy the court that in the circumstances of a particular case before the court, it was not desirable to pay undue regard to a relevant technically. Article 126(2) (e) is not a magic wand in the hands of defaulting litigants.

Ruling

Preliminary objection upheld. The Applicant should have signed the Appeal petition in her hand, short of which the appeal was found to be incompetent and was dismissed with costs.