Asaba and Another ( Administrators of the estate of the late Rwaheru Akiiki) v Kafeero and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 2004 of 2021)

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

The court upheld the preliminary objection that the suit had abated under Order XIA rule 2(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules because the applicants failed to take out summons for directions within the mandatory 28-day period from the last reply or rejoinder. The word 'shall' in the rule is mandatory and requires strict compliance. A non-existent abated suit cannot be amended. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Outcome

Application dismissed; court noted applicants could raise their arguments in Civil Suit No. 0241 of 2021 where they had been granted leave to file defence out of time

Facts

The applicants, administrators of an estate, filed Civil Suit No. 210 of 2021 against the first respondent concerning land. Before determination, they learned the first respondent had allegedly fraudulently sold the suit land to the second respondent. The applicants sought leave to amend their plaint to add the second respondent as a defendant. The written statement of defence was filed on 24 March 2021, endorsed 6 April 2021, and served 13 April 2021. The applicants failed to take out summons for directions within 28 days. They eventually filed summons for directions on 26 May 2021, after the deadline. The first respondent raised a preliminary objection that the suit had abated due to non-compliance with the mandatory time limit under Order XIA rule 2(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

1. Whether the suit has abated due to the applicants' failure to take out summons for directions within 28 days.
2. Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend their plaint.

Orders

• Preliminary objection upheld.
• Application dismissed.
• Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap. 71 s.98
• Judicature Act Cap.13 s.33
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 1 rule 13
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 6 rule 19
• Civil Procedure Rules Order XIA rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order XIA rule 6
• Civil Procedure Rules Order XIA rule 7
• Civil Procedure Rules Order VII rule 18(5)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 126(2)(e)

Cases cited (2)

• Seruwude v Swangs Avenue (Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2021)
• Geofrey Wasswa v Amy for Africa Limited and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 127 of 2020)

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.

• Luwedde Kasule and Another (Suing through their lawful Attorney Bisaso) v The Board of Governors Directors of Caltec Academic Makerere and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 23

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