Allied Transporters and Constructors Limited v Hoima Sugar Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2424 of 2024)
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 held that a written statement of defence filed 19 days after service of summons, instead of the mandatory 15 days prescribed by Order 8 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, was incompetent and must be struck out. The word 'shall' in the rule is mandatory. Service upon the defendant's instructed advocates was valid. The defendant's failure to seek leave to file out of time rendered the defence incompetent on record.
Outcome
Written statement of defence struck out; underlying civil suit to proceed to hearing
Facts
The Applicant filed Civil Suit No. 0957 of 2024 against the Respondent on 9 August 2024 for breach of contract. Fresh summons were issued on 12 September 2024 after initial network challenges prevented retrieval. Service was effected on 18 September 2024 upon M/s Kasangaki & Co. Advocates, the Respondent's external counsel at Masindi, who acknowledged receipt. The Respondent filed its written statement of defence on 6 October 2024, 19 days after service. The Respondent contended that service was improper because the law firm had not been instructed to accept service at the time, and that the delay was unintentional. The Applicant sought to strike out the defence for being filed outside the mandatory 15-day period without leave of court.
Issues
- Whether the Respondent filed the written statement of defence out of time?
- What remedies are available?
Orders
- The written statement of defence is incompetent.
- The written statement of defence is hereby struck out.
- Civil Suit No. 0957 of 2024 shall be fixed for hearing in the next session.
- Costs of this application shall be in the cause.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
Cases cited (4)
- Mulindwa George William v Kisubika Joseph (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2014)
- Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Limited (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2000)
- Senkungu & 4 Others v Mukasa (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2014)
- Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General (SCCA No. 28 of 1993)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.