Wakilii

Bank of Africa-Uganda Ltd v Buturumba & Others (Miscellaneous Application 230 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHC 121 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ex-parte application for extension of time to serve summons and for substituted service, arising from HCCS No. 76 of 2022
Decision
Application dismissed and underlying suit struck out for failure to comply with mandatory time limits for service of summons

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 court dismissed the application for extension of time to serve summons and struck out the underlying suit. The application was filed four days after the mandatory 15-day deadline prescribed by Order 5 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court held that the use of the word 'shall' makes the time limit mandatory and the court has no power to extend time beyond the 15-day period. Once the summons became stale for non-compliance, the suit automatically lapsed.

Outcome

Application dismissed and underlying suit struck out for failure to comply with mandatory time limits for service of summons

Facts

Bank of Africa-Uganda Ltd filed Civil Suit No. 76 of 2022 on 5 July 2022 and summons to file a defence were issued the same day. The applicant had 21 days (until 25 July 2022) to serve the summons on the respondents. The applicant then had a further 15 days (until 8 August 2022) to apply for extension of time if service was not effected. The applicant filed the instant ex-parte application on 12 August 2022, seeking extension of time to serve summons and leave for substituted service. The applicant's advocates stated they had exercised due diligence but were unable to effect personal service on the first respondent.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for extension of time to serve summons was filed within the mandatory 15-day period prescribed by Order 5 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the court has power to extend time for service of summons where the application is filed outside the 15-day period.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Civil Suit No. 76 of 2022 struck out.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Extension of Time — Mandatory Time Limits
The time limits prescribed by Order 5 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules for service of summons and for applying for extension of time are mandatory. The court has no power to extend time where an application for extension is filed beyond the 15-day period following expiry of the initial 21 days for service.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Automatic Dismissal — Stale Summons
Where summons are not served within 21 days of issue and no application for extension of time is made within the prescribed 15-day period, the suit is automatically dismissed without notice pursuant to Order 5 rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The summons become stale and cannot be revived.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Substituted Service — Precondition
An application for substituted service can only be entertained where there is a valid platform for service. Where summons have become stale due to non-compliance with mandatory time limits, no application for substituted service can succeed as the underlying suit has lapsed.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bank of Africa-Uganda Ltd v Buturumba & Others (Miscellaneous Application 230 of 2022) [2022] UGHC 121 (13 December 2022)
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.