ASEGE Vs.

OPPORTUNITY BANK (U) LIMITED & MAAD

ADVERTISING HCCA NO. 756 OF 2013
Another key area to consider is 3rd Party Claims.
In Asege Vs Opportunity Bank (U) Limited & MAAD Advertising HCCA
No.756 of 2013 the plaintiff MAAD advertising is referred to as the
3rd party in the case. The way third party claims work is that when a
defendant claims to be entitled to contribution or indemnity over
against any person not a party to the suit, he or she may, by leave
of the court issue a notice called a third party notice to that effect.
This is per Order 1 rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules. This rule
applies where the defendant to the case believes that he or she has
a claim against another person or that person should share in the
liability to the Plaintiff.
In this case, Asege Winnie sued both Opportunity Bank (U) Ltd and
MAAD advertising as being jointly liable for the infringement on her
rights. MAAD as a third party should have been liable to contribute
to the liability of the Defendant in the form of damages.
In the case of Uganda General Trading Co Ltd Vs Jinja Cash
Stores1 it was stated that two conditions must be fulfilled before
Defendants are joined;
Right to relief must arise out of the same act/ transaction
If separate suits are brought a common question of the law/
fact arises out of the facts.
MAAD was hired by Opportunity Bank (U) Ltd to create an advert for
their new Agro save account and they were given specifications as
to what Opportunity Bank wanted to see in the picture. It therefore
was not right for the Plaintiff to sue the MAAD together with
Opportunity bank because I do not believe that they should share in
the liability Opportunity Bank has to Asege Winnie.
The most suited third party to this case would have been New Vision
because it is New Vision that owned the picture first and sold it to
Opportunity Bank. New Vision could be said to owe a duty of care to
the Plaintiff.
In the case of NBS Television Ltd. Vs. Uganda Broadcasting
Corporation2 It was stated that is trite law that for a third party to
be legally joined to a suit, the subject matter as between the
1 (1965) EA 469
2 Misc. Application No. 421 of 2012

defendant and the third party must be the same as that between the
defendant and the plaintiff, and similarly the cause of action
between the defendant and third party must be the same as the
original cause of action. There is no such similarity between MAAD
and Opportunity Bank (U) Ltd.

How will the 1st and 2nd Defendant pay the damages awarded
to the Plaintiff?
The damages were distributed thus
5% royalty fees - to be handled by the 1 st Defendant
singlehandedly
Breach of privacy Ug. Shs. 80,000,000 (50% each)
General damages Ug. Shs. 50,000,000 (in equal parts)
Aggravated damages Ug. Shs. 20,000,000
All the above met jointly by defendant and 3rd party at a 60%
ratio and 40% respectively.
The court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce
judgement and on that judgment a decree shall follow. Order 21 rule
7 is to the effect that a decree must be prepared by the successful
party and submitted to the other partys for approval. After which it
shall be submitted to the Registrar who if is satisfied it is in line with
the judgement shall sign and seal the decree accordingly.
If the decree is not obeyed;
An application for the execution of a decree in accordance with
Order 22 rule 8(2) in the form provided in Form 5 in the schedule to
the Civil Procedure Rules. After which you appoint and engage a
licenced bailiff in accordance with Rule 4 of the Judicature (Court
Bailiff) Rules SI 13-16.
The bailiff submits his documents to the court for approval that he is
a registered bailiff with necessary authority to act after which the
successful party then applies for a warrant of execution.
Looking at the current case, there is confusion as to who will pay
what as the last statement of the award states that the damages will
be met jointly by the Defendants at a 60% to 40% ratio. There is no
direction as to who will bear the 60% and who will bear the 40%.

The only thing that both defendants can do is seek the guidance of
the court as to how to pay these damages.
In conclusion this case was I believe unfairly decided against the
Defendants and the award of damages to the Plaintiff is exorbitant.