Alikarim Badrudin Sunderji v SMA Distillers and Others (Civil Suit No. 385 of 2015)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

A proposed written statement of defence filed before the court grants leave to defend does not automatically satisfy a subsequent court order directing that a formal defence be filed within a statutory period. Compliance with court orders is mandatory. However, in the interests of substantive justice and expeditious adjudication under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, the court may allow a defendant to apply for extension of time to regularise their defence rather than dismiss the suit, particularly where dismissal would prejudice the plaintiff who sought it on a misplaced ground.

Outcome

Matter to proceed after defendants file application for extension of time to file defence

Facts

The plaintiff brought a commercial suit by specially endorsed plaint under Order 36 rule 2 on 19 June 2015. Default judgment was granted on 3 August 2015 but set aside on 22 January 2016 with an order that the defendants file their written statement of defence within fifteen days. The defendants failed to comply. Seven months later, counsel for the plaintiff sought dismissal of the suit for lack of a defence. The defendants had filed a proposed written statement of defence on 3 November 2015 in support of their application for leave to defend, but argued this defect was cured by that earlier filing. Defendants also challenged the validity of service of summons on them.

Issues

1. Whether a proposed written statement of defence attached to an application for leave to defend a summary suit amounts to filing a substantive written statement of defence.

Orders

• Preliminary point of law raised by counsel for the plaintiff overruled.
• Defendants directed to file an application seeking extension of time to file their written statements of defence within seven days.
• Application to be scheduled for hearing expeditiously.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (13)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 8 rule 1(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 8 rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 rule 6
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 rule 11(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 3
• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Act s.97
• Judicature Act s.33
• Judicature Act s.14(2)(b)(i)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 126(2)(e)
• Constitution (Commercial Court) (Practice) Directions Rule 2(2)
• Judicature (Court Fees) Rules S.I. 13-1

Cases cited (10)

• Margaret Musango v Francis Musango (HCB 226 of 1979)
• Mbarara Coffee Curing Works Ltd v Grindlays Bank (U) Ltd (HCB 57 of 1975)
• Robert B.K. Sebunya v Attorney General (HCB 224 of 1992-93)
• Frederick JK Zaabwe v Orient Bank & 5 others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
• Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
• R V Sinclair & Ors (1968) 3 ALL ER 241
• Stephen Mabosi v Uganda Revenue Authority (Court of Appeal No. 161 of 1995)
• Standard Chartered Bank Uganda Ltd v Mwesigwa Geoffrey Philip (Miscellaneous Application No. 477 of 2012)
• Hadkinson vs. Hardkinson [1952] All E R 567
• Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Another v Edward Musisi (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Alkarim Badrudin Sunderji v SMA Distillers and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 974 of 2015)

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