Wakilii

Abdu Ssalongo v Kasese Town Council (Civil Suit No.13 of 1991)

High Court · [1992] UGHC 14 · 1992 Preliminary Objection Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection raised by plaintiff's counsel concerning service of written statement of defence in ongoing civil suit
Decision
Preliminary objection upheld; defendants required to properly serve their written statements of defence on plaintiff's counsel at stated address for service

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

Held that filing a defence on the court record does not constitute proper service unless a duplicate is delivered to the opposite party's address for service. The defendants filed their defences on record within time but failed to serve the plaintiff's counsel at his stated Kampala address. Service on the plaintiff personally or leaving copies in the court file for collection does not satisfy the requirements of Order 8 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The objection to lack of service was upheld with costs.

Outcome

Preliminary objection upheld; defendants required to properly serve their written statements of defence on plaintiff's counsel at stated address for service

Facts

The plaintiff filed suit against Kasese Town Council and M/S Kabaco Uganda Ltd concerning disputed land plots in Kasese. After the court ruled that an amended plaint was properly filed, defendants were required to file their defences within 15 days. The first defendant filed its written statement of defence on 7 May 1992 and the second defendant on 27 April 1992. Both defences were placed on the court record. When the case was called for hearing on 1 June 1992, plaintiff's counsel raised a preliminary objection that he had never been served with the defendants' written statements of defence at his stated Kampala address. The first defendant claimed to have instructed their client to engage a process server in Kasese to serve the plaintiff personally. The second defendant left a copy in the court file expecting counsel to collect it. Neither defendant provided evidence of service at the plaintiff's counsel's address for service in Kampala.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendants properly served their written statements of defence on the plaintiff's counsel.
  2. Whether the trial could proceed in the absence of proper service of the defendants' written statements of defence.
  3. Whether the Court should visit the locus in quo to investigate alleged violation of a temporary injunction.

Orders

  • Objection by plaintiff's counsel that he was never served with written statement of defence upheld with costs.
  • Prayer for court to visit locus in quo overruled.
  • Prayer for court to send counsels to view disputed plots overruled.
  • Plaintiff's counsel advised to move court with an application if alleging violation of temporary injunction.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Pleadings — Written Statement of Defence — Distinction between Filing and Service
Filing a written statement of defence on the court record is a separate and distinct step from serving the defence on the opposite party. Both steps are mandatory requirements under Order 8 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules and must be completed within the stipulated time.
Civil Procedure — Service of Defence — Address for Service — Proper Method
Service of a written statement of defence must be effected by delivering a duplicate to the address for service stated by the opposite party's counsel. Where counsel has provided a specific address for service, it is improper to serve the lay client personally or to leave a copy in the court file expecting counsel to collect it.
Civil Procedure — Service of Defence — Consequences of Non-Service
Where a defendant has filed a defence on record but has not served it on the plaintiff's counsel at the stated address for service, the plaintiff is entitled to object that proceedings cannot commence until proper service is effected. The court will uphold such objection with costs.

Legislation cited (5)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Abdu Ssalongo v Kasese Town Council (Civil Suit No.13 of 1991) [1992] UGHC 14 (6 July 1992)
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.