Wakilii

CL Risk Management Services & Another v Kasozi & Another (Miscellaneous Appeal 31 of 2022)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 46 · 2024 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from ruling of Assistant Registrar granting ex parte temporary injunction
Decision
Appeal dismissed on preliminary objection for defective notice of motion lacking judicial signature and court seal

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 dismissed the appeal on a preliminary objection. The court held that the notice of motion served on the respondents was defective because it lacked the mandatory signature of a judicial officer and court seal as required by Order 5 rule 1(5) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Although the appellants had filed electronically through ECCMIS and a signed, dated notice was available on the court portal, they chose to serve hard copies that were neither signed nor sealed. This fundamental defect rendered the summons a nullity. The requirement for judicial signature and court seal is mandatory, not a technicality, even under the electronic filing system.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on preliminary objection for defective notice of motion lacking judicial signature and court seal

Facts

The respondents filed Civil Suit No. 624 of 2022 seeking cancellation of advertisement for sale of property. They then filed Miscellaneous Application No. 1023 of 2022 for temporary injunction, which they served on the appellants on either 6 or 8 August 2022. The appellants claimed to have filed an affidavit in reply on 23 August 2022. On 25 August 2022, the Assistant Registrar granted an ex parte order on the basis that the appellants had been served but had not filed any affidavit in reply. The appellants appealed this ruling. The matter was filed electronically through ECCMIS on 6 September 2022. On 7 September 2022, the court issued a signed and dated notice of motion on ECCMIS. However, the hard copies served by the appellants on the respondents were neither signed, dated nor sealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the notice of motion was defective for lacking judicial signature, endorsement and court seal as required under Order 5 rule 1(5) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the appeal was incompetent for failure to challenge the affidavit of service.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summons — Requirements for Validity — Signature and Court Seal
Every summons must be signed by the judge or such officer as he or she appoints and sealed with the seal of the court in accordance with Order 5 rule 1(5) of the Civil Procedure Rules. This requirement is mandatory, not a technicality. A notice of motion that lacks judicial signature and court seal is a fundamental defect which is incurable and renders the application incompetent and a nullity.
Civil Procedure — Electronic Filing — ECCMIS — Compliance with Service Requirements
The introduction of the Electronic Court Case Management System (ECCMIS) does not dispense with the mandatory requirements for service of summons under Order 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Where a signed and sealed summons is available on the ECCMIS portal, a party who chooses to serve hard copies that are neither signed nor sealed fails to comply with mandatory procedural requirements.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Nature and Scope
A preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion. A preliminary objection, if upheld, should render further proceedings before the tribunal impossible or unnecessary.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (12)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (1969) EA 697
  • Quick Enterprises Ltd v Kenya Airways Corporation (Civil Case No. 22 of 1999)
  • Avtar Singh Bhamra & Another v Oriental Commercial Bank (Civil Case No. 53 of 2004)
  • Soroti Municipal Council v Pal Agencies (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 181 of 2012)
  • Hussein Badda v Iganga District Land Board & Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 479 of 2011)
  • Nakito Brothers Ltd v Katumba [1983] HCB 70
  • Nyanzi Muhamad v Nasolo Annet and others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 14 of 2021)
  • Kinyara Sugar Ltd v Kyomuhendo Pamela (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 61 of 2020)
  • Isingoma Micheal v LDC (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 234 of 2019)
  • Kaur v City Mart [1967] EA 108
  • Fredrick James Jjujju & Anor v Madhivani Group Ltd & Anor (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 688 of 2016)
  • Domaro Behagana & Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 53 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

CL Risk Management Services & Another v Kasozi & Another (Miscellaneous Appeal 31 of 2022) [2024] UGCommC 46 (12 March 2024)
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.