Wakilii

Bokomo U Ltd & Anor v Rand Bliar t a Momentum Feeds (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2011)

High Court · [2012] UGCOMMC 21 · 2012 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Registrar's decision dismissing application for security for costs, arising from Miscellaneous Application No. 330 of 2011, itself arising from Civil Suit No. 13 of 2010
Decision
Appeal dismissed; Registrar's ruling upholding the preliminary objection and dismissing the application for security for costs as time-barred is affirmed

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

Held that mandatory mediation under the Commercial Court Mediation Rules 2007 constitutes alternative dispute resolution under Order 12 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules; interlocutory applications must be filed within 21 days of completion of mandatory mediation. The application for security for costs filed over one year after mediation concluded was time-barred. Appeal dismissed, each party to bear own costs due to the public importance of the questions raised.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; Registrar's ruling upholding the preliminary objection and dismissing the application for security for costs as time-barred is affirmed

Facts

The appellants filed Civil Suit No. 13 of 2010 in the Commercial Division. Defence was filed on 3 February 2010. Mandatory mediation under the Commercial Court Mediation Rules 2007 was conducted and concluded on 26 May 2010, when the suit was referred back to court for trial. No scheduling conference had been held. On 21 June 2011, over one year after mediation concluded, the appellants filed Miscellaneous Application No. 330 of 2011 seeking an order that the respondent furnish security for costs. The respondent objected on the ground that the application was time-barred under Order 12 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires interlocutory applications to be filed within 21 days of completion of ADR. The Registrar upheld the objection and dismissed the application on 7 November 2011. The appellants appealed, arguing that mandatory mediation under the Mediation Rules 2007 does not constitute ADR under Order 12 CPR, and that timelines only run after a scheduling conference ordered by a judge.

Issues

  1. Whether an appeal from a Registrar's order is incompetent where no extracted order was attached to the appeal, only the ruling.
  2. Whether mandatory mediation under the Judicature (Commercial Court Division) (Mediation) Rules 2007 constitutes alternative dispute resolution (ADR) under Order 12 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules for the purpose of calculating time limits for filing interlocutory applications.
  3. Whether the application for security for costs was time-barred under Order 12 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  4. Whether the delay of over one year in filing the application for security for costs amounts to inordinate delay.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals from Registrar — Form of Appeal — Requirement to Extract Order
An appeal from a Registrar's order under Order 50 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules is by motion on notice and does not require an extracted order to be attached where the ruling from which the order flows is attached, as an order is extracted from a ruling and failure to attach the extracted order is not fatal where the ruling itself is provided.
Civil Procedure — Mediation — Mandatory Mediation and ADR under Order 12 — Harmonisation of Rules
Mandatory mediation under the Judicature (Commercial Court Division) (Mediation) Rules 2007 constitutes alternative dispute resolution (ADR) within the meaning of Order 12 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules; the Mediation Rules supplement and are to be construed in harmony with Order 12, and carrying out mandatory mediation fulfils the event envisaged by Order 12 rule 3(1) for the purpose of triggering time limits for filing interlocutory applications.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Applications — Time Limits — Calculation in Commercial Court
In the Commercial Court Division, where a party is not exempted from mandatory mediation under the Mediation Rules 2007, all interlocutory applications must be filed within 21 days from the date of completion of mandatory mediation under Order 12 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules; the alternative timeline of 15 days from completion of a scheduling conference applies only where there has been no ADR.
Commercial Law — Security for Costs — Delay in Filing Application
An application for security for costs must be made without delay; where a defendant waits over a year after completion of mandatory mediation to file such an application, when several steps ought to have been taken in the prosecution of the suit, this amounts to inordinate delay and is a ground for refusing the relief sought.
Administrative Law — Statutory Interpretation — Harmonisation of Statutes — Later Legislation Modifying Earlier Rules
Where there is an active, subsequent and related piece of legislation, it is deemed that it was the intention of the lawmakers to create modifications in the law; the Judicature (Commercial Court Division) (Mediation) Rules 2007, being the most recent legislation, modified the application of Order 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules in so far as the Commercial Court is concerned.

Legislation cited (28)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.79(1)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.79(3)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.2
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.44 r.1(u)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.50 r.8
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.50 r.6
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.12 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.12 r.2
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.12 r.3(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.26 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.26 r.3
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.17 r.5
  • Judicature (Commercial Court Division) (Mediation) Rules 2007 r.8
  • Judicature (Commercial Court Division) (Mediation) Rules 2007 r.8(3)
  • Judicature (Commercial Court Division) (Mediation) Rules 2007 r.8(4)
  • Judicature (Commercial Court Division) (Mediation) Rules 2007 r.2
  • Judicature (Commercial Court Division) (Mediation) Rules 2007 r.9
  • Judicature (Commercial Court Division) (Mediation) Rules 2007 r.10
  • Judicature (Commercial Court Division) (Mediation) Rules 2007 r.11
  • Judicature (Commercial Court Division) (Mediation) Rules 2007 r.20
  • Judicature (Commercial Court Division) (Mediation) Rules 2007 r.21
  • Judicature Act s.41
  • Constitution (Commercial Court) (Practice) Directions r.2
  • Constitution (Commercial Court) (Practice) Directions r.6
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.126(2)(e)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.145
  • Magistrate's Court Act No. 13 of 1970 s.232(1)(4)

Cases cited (7)

  • WTM Kisule versus Nampewe [1984] HCB 55
  • Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Stop and See Uganda Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Haydon's case (1584) 3 Co. Rep. 7a
  • Salkeld v. Johnson (1848) 2 Ex 256
  • criminal versus Clark (1883) 8 Appeal Cases 114
  • Royal Group of Pakistan v Mavid Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 689 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bokomo U Ltd & Anor v Rand Bliar t a Momentum Feeds (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2011) [2012] UGCommC 21 (12 April 2012)
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.