Wakilii

Abdunoor Tulu v Zamzam Soffie and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 45 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 125 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to file appeal out of time arising from civil suit
Decision
Application dismissed for failure to serve respondent within prescribed time; related appeal struck out

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 dismissed an application for leave to file an appeal out of time under Order 5 rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant failed to serve the notice of motion on the respondent within twenty-one days of issue and filed no application for extension of time to serve. The court held that mandatory dismissal follows where service is not effected within the prescribed period and no extension is sought.

Outcome

Application dismissed for failure to serve respondent within prescribed time; related appeal struck out

Facts

The applicant filed a miscellaneous application on 1 July 2024 seeking leave to file an appeal out of time against a decision in Civil Suit No. ARU-00-LD-CS No. 0034 of 2022 and validation of a memorandum of appeal filed in Civil Appeal No. 0037 of 2024. When the matter came up for hearing on 18 December 2025, the court observed that the respondent had not filed a reply. The applicant's counsel confirmed that no affidavit of service existed on the court record and that the respondent was highly unlikely to have been served. The notice of motion ought to have been served by 22 July 2024 but was never served, and no application for extension of time to serve was filed.

Issues

  1. Whether the application should be dismissed for failure to serve the respondent within the time prescribed by the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Application dismissed under Order 5 rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Civil Appeal No. 0037 of 2024 struck out.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Mandatory Dismissal for Failure to Serve Within Time
Where a notice of motion has not been served within twenty-one days from the date of issue and no application for extension of time to serve has been filed, the application must be dismissed under Order 5 rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Proof of Service Required
An applicant bears the burden of proving service on the respondent through an affidavit of service on the court record, and absence of such proof supports a finding that service was not effected.

Legislation cited (11)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Abdunoor Tulu v Zamzam Soffie and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 45 of 2024) [2026] UGHC 125 (18 February 2026)
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.