Wakilii

Chongquing International Construction Corporation Ltd v Francis Kaahwa (Civil Appeal No. 219 of 2021; Civil Application No. 192 of 2021)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 376 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal to the Court of Appeal from a High Court civil judgment, heard together with an application to validate appeal documents filed out of time.
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the High Court judgment, orders and decree (declaration of ownership, eviction, permanent injunction, restitution and general damages) stand.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal granted the application to validate appeal documents filed late, holding that COVID-19 movement restrictions amounted to sufficient reason under Rule 5. It overruled the respondent's preliminary objections, finding the appellant appealed the final decree as of right (no leave required) and had locus standi. It dismissed the appeal on all grounds: a written statement of defence neither signed nor sealed by the registrar under Order 9 Rule 1(1) of the CPR is incurably defective, and Article 126(2)(e) does not excuse non-compliance with procedural rules; the appellant, having lost audience, could with reasonable diligence have known the hearing date; and abatement and scheduling-conference complaints did not arise after judgment.

Facts

The respondent sued the appellant in the High Court at Masindi for damages for trespass to land and under the doctrine of unjust enrichment, alleging that the appellant entered his land at Bukumi Village, Buliisa District, without consent and excavated murram. The appellant filed a written statement of defence denying the claim, contending the land belonged to one Felix Jakwonga from whom it had lawfully leased it for excavation. The respondent objected that the defence was defective for lacking space for the registrar's signature and court seal, and so was unsigned and unsealed contrary to Order 9 Rule 1(1) of the CPR. The trial judge sustained the objection, struck out the defence, heard the respondent's evidence in the appellant's absence, and entered judgment declaring the respondent the lawful owner, ordering eviction and a permanent injunction, and awarding UGX 552,839,548 as restitution for the value of murram excavated and UGX 260,000,000 in general damages, with interest and costs. The appellant appealed, also applying to validate appeal documents filed late due to COVID-19 movement restrictions.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal was incompetent for want of leave and whether the appellant had locus standi to appeal after its written statement of defence was struck out.
  2. Whether the appellant's appeal documents filed out of time should be validated for sufficient reason under Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal.
  3. Whether a written statement of defence which is neither signed nor sealed by the registrar under Order 9 Rule 1(1) of the CPR is incurably defective and was rightly struck out.
  4. Whether Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution could excuse the failure to comply with Order 9 Rule 1(1) of the CPR.
  5. Whether the trial proceeded in the appellant's absence without proper notice in breach of the right to a fair hearing under Article 28(1).
  6. Whether the suit abated for failure to take out summons for directions under Order 11A and whether failure to hold a scheduling conference vitiated the proceedings.

Orders

  • Civil Application No. 192 of 2021 allowed; the appellant's appeal and appeal documents validated.
  • No order as to costs of Civil Application No. 192 of 2021.
  • Civil Appeal No. 219 of 2021 dismissed on all grounds.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Written Statement of Defence — Signing and Sealing under Order 9 Rule 1(1) CPR
A written statement of defence that is neither signed nor sealed by the registrar of the court is irregular and incurably defective, and is liable to be struck out under the mandatory requirements of Order 9 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Constitutional Law — Article 126(2)(e) — Substantive Justice Subordinate to Rules of Procedure
Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution does not dispense with the requirement that litigants comply with rules of procedure; the administration of substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities operates subject to the law, which includes the rules of procedure.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Right of Appeal against Final Decree — Leave under Section 66 CPA
An appeal against the final judgment and decree of the High Court lies as of right under Section 66 of the Civil Procedure Act and does not require leave, even where it follows an interlocutory order striking out a defence; a party aggrieved by and affected by the final decree has locus standi to appeal.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Rule 5 Court of Appeal Rules — Sufficient Reason
Government movement restrictions imposed to curb the spread of COVID-19 can constitute sufficient reason under Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal to validate appeal documents served or filed outside the prescribed time, where the appeal raises arguable points and no prejudice is occasioned to the respondent.
Constitutional Law — Right to a Fair Hearing — Ex parte Hearing after Striking Out of Defence
A defendant whose written statement of defence has been struck out loses the right of audience, and a party who knew or could with reasonable diligence have known of a hearing date cannot complain that an ex parte hearing violated its constitutional right to a fair hearing under Article 28(1).
Civil Procedure — Case Management — Summons for Directions (Order 11A) and Scheduling Conference
Summons for directions and a scheduling conference are case management tools; once final judgment has been handed down the question of abatement for failure to take out summons for directions becomes moot, and the consequences of failing to hold a scheduling conference fall to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Legislation cited (15)

  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 Rule 1(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 8 Rule 19
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 Rule 10
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 Rule 5
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 44 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019 Order 11A
  • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019 Order 11A Rule 7
  • Civil Procedure Act s.2(c)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.66
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 126(2)(e)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 28(1)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 5
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 76(1)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 83(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 16-10 Rule 30(1)(a)

Cases cited (22)

  • Boney Katatumba v Waheed Karim (Civil Application No. 27 of 2007)
  • Fr. Narsensio Begumisa and Others v Eric Tibebaga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • Hwan Sung Ltd v M and D Timber Merchants and Transporters Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2018)
  • Utex Industries v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 52 of 1995)
  • Grace Natoolo v Francis A.W Bwengye (Civil Suit No. 42 of 2002)
  • MB Automotrile vs. Kampala Bus Service [1966] EA 2 ULR 144
  • National Enterprises v Mukisa Foods (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1997)
  • Captain Philip Ongom v Catherine Owata (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2001)
  • Nanhibhai Prabhudas and Co. Ltd vs. Standard Chartered Bank Ltd [1968] EA 670
  • Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (Consolidated Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2018)
  • Edward Byaruhanga Katumba v David Kyewalabye (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Kyagalanyi Coffee Ltd, Civil Suit No. 6 of 2019
  • Enock Awasabi Gberteey Vs E.A Accam Esquire & Anor, SCCA No.J4/4/2011 (Ghana)
  • Gaba Beach Hotel Ltd v Cairo International Bank Ltd (Civil Application No. 34 of 2003)
  • General Bello Sarkin Yaki (RTD) Vs Senator Abubaker Atiku [2015] LPELR 25721 (SC)
  • Anguria Paul v Omerikol and Another (Civil Appeal No. 197 of 2014)
  • Kaur City Vs Auction Mart Ltd [1967] EA 108
  • Ideal Shopping Direct Ltd & Ors v Mastercard Incorporated & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 14
  • Mulindwa G.W v Kisubika Joseph (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2014)
  • Revici v Prentice Hall Incorporated & Ors [1969] 1 All ER 772
  • King's College Budo Staff Saving Scheme v Lukanga Bosco and Another (Civil Suit No. 26 of 2010)
  • Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.