Wakilii

Betty Komuhendo v Kaganga Augustine and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 28 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 200 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out written statement of defence filed out of time, arising from civil suit
Decision
Application dismissed; written statement of defence remains on record

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 to strike out the defence. The applicant failed to prove proper service on 2 December 2024. The process server did not effect personal service on the respondents but left documents with the LC1 chairman without confirming delivery. The court found service was effected on 16 December 2024 when documents were left at the second respondent's home. The defence filed on 23 December 2024 was therefore within time.

Outcome

Application dismissed; written statement of defence remains on record

Facts

The applicant filed suit against three respondents and sought to strike out their written statement of defence on grounds it was filed out of time. The applicant claimed the respondents were served with summons on 2 December 2024 and were required to file defence within 15 days by 16 December 2024. The respondents filed their defence on 23 December 2024. The applicant argued this was 22 days after service and the respondents had not sought leave to file out of time. The respondents denied being personally served on 2 December 2024. The process server's affidavit showed she went to the LC1 chairman's office on 2 December 2024, the chairman called the respondents who said they had travelled, and the chairman signed for receipt of the documents. The second respondent averred the summons was delivered to his home on 16 December 2024 in his absence.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondents were duly served with summons to file a defence.
  2. Whether the Respondents filed their written statement of defence out of time.
  3. Whether the Applicant is entitled to have the defence struck out and judgment entered in default of defence.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Service of Process — Personal Service — Preference and Requirements
Personal service upon a defendant is the most preferred mode of service of court process. Before alternative modes of service can be effected under Order 5 rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the process server must first use all due reasonable diligence to find the defendant or any of the persons mentioned in rules 12 and 13 including family members.
Service of Process — Substituted Service — Burden of Proof
Where a process server does not effect personal service but leaves documents with a third party, the party alleging proper service bears the burden of proving that the documents were actually delivered to the defendant and the date of such delivery. Receipt of documents by an intermediary does not constitute proper service upon the defendant.
Time Limits — Defence — Computation from Date of Service
The 15-day period for filing a written statement of defence under Order 8 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules runs from the date of proper service of the summons. Where proper service has not been established, a defendant cannot be held to have filed out of time.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (2)

  • Utex Industries v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 52 of 1995)
  • Omuchilo v Machiwa (1966) EA 229

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Betty Komuhendo v Kaganga Augustine and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 28 of 2025) [2026] UGHCLD 200 (5 June 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.