Wakilii

ABC Capital Bank Ltd v A-1 Industries Ltd & 2 Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 1059 of 2016)

High Court · [2017] UGCOMMC 143 · 2017 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to file a reply to written statement of defence and defence to counterclaim out of time arising from loan recovery suit HCCS 293 of 2016
Decision
Leave granted to file reply and defence out of time; matter remitted for filing within 10 days

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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 High Court granted the applicant bank leave to file its reply to the written statement of defence and defence to counterclaim out of time. The court held it was not functus officio as no judgment had been entered in the main suit. Applying principles from Rosette Kizito and Andrew Bamanya, the court found sufficient reason existed where counsel was ill with pneumonia and high blood pressure. The mistakes of counsel should not be visited upon an innocent litigant, and disputes should be decided on merit rather than shut out on technicalities.

Outcome

Leave granted to file reply and defence out of time; matter remitted for filing within 10 days

Facts

ABC Capital Bank filed a loan recovery suit (HCCS 293 of 2016) against A-1 Industries Ltd and two guarantors for UGX 110,371,650. The respondents filed a written statement of defence and counterclaim. The applicant's counsel, Sebugwawo Marvin, failed to file the reply to the written statement of defence and defence to counterclaim within the prescribed 15-day period from service on 30 May 2016. The delay was attributed to counsel's illness, specifically pneumonia and high blood pressure. The respondents opposed the application, arguing it was overtaken by events and that the applicant had already filed its reply in a previous application (Misc. App. 840 of 2016), rendering the court functus officio.

Issues

  1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to grant leave to the applicant to file a reply to the written statement of defence and a defence to the counterclaim in HCCS 293 of 2016 out of time

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The applicant to file its reply to the written statement of defence and defence to the counterclaim within 10 days of this ruling.
  • Costs to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Extension of Time — Sufficient Reason — Illness of Counsel
Sufficient reason to grant an extension of time must relate to the inability or failure to take the particular step in time, and includes mistake of counsel, illness, and ignorance of filing procedures by counsel.
Extension of Time — Mistake of Counsel — No Prejudice to Litigant
The mistakes, faults, lapses or dilatory conduct of counsel should not be visited upon an innocent litigant, and when a party instructs counsel who assumes control of the case, the party cannot share conduct with counsel and therefore cannot be blamed for counsel's failures.
Doctrine of Functus Officio — Application
A court is functus officio only where it has fully exercised its powers over a case and made a decision, thereby exhausting its powers; where a case has not been heard exhaustively and no ruling or judgment has been entered, the court is not functus officio and retains jurisdiction to entertain applications.
Extension of Time — Prejudice and Costs
No prejudice is suffered by a respondent in granting leave to file out of time if any prejudice can be compensated by an order for costs.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (6)

  • Rosette Kizito v Administrator General and Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 9 of 1996)
  • Andrew Bamanya v Shamsherali Zaver (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 70 of 2001)
  • Mohan Kiwanuka v Aisha Chand (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 14 of 2002)
  • Kattuku and Others v Kalimbagiza (1987) HCB 75
  • Philip Ongom v Catherine Nyero Owoto (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2001)
  • Hajati Safina Nababi v Yafesi Lule (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1998)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

ABC Capital Bank Ltd v A-1 Industries Ltd & 2 Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 1059 of 2016) [2017] UGCommC 143 (11 October 2017)
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.