Creamhill Nursery And Primary School v Hitesh Shah (Miscellaneous Application No. 2288 of 2024)

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.

Holding

The court held that an application for leave to appear and defend filed on 7 October 2024 was within time where service occurred on 27 September 2024, as the 10-day period runs from the date of service excluding Sundays. The court invoked its inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to set aside the default judgment and the order dismissing the application for leave to defend, finding that the application had been inadvertently dismissed despite being filed within the prescribed period.

Outcome

Default judgment and dismissal order set aside; applicant granted leave to proceed with defence

Facts

The respondent instituted a summary suit against the applicant in Civil Suit No. 1135 of 2024. Summons were served on the applicant on 27 September 2024. The applicant filed an application for leave to appear and defend on 7 October 2024. The application was dismissed on 18 October 2024 on the ground that it was filed outside the prescribed 10-day period. Default judgment was entered against the applicant. The applicant then brought this application to set aside the default judgment and the dismissal order, arguing that the application had been filed within time when properly computed.

Issues

1. Whether this application discloses sufficient grounds for the grant of reliefs sought?
2. What remedies are available?

Orders

• The default Judgment and Decree in Civil Suit No. 1135 of 2024 is set aside.
• The Order of dismissal in Miscellaneous Application No. 2066 of 2024 is set aside.
• Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (11)

• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 36 Rule 11
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rules 1 and 3
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 51 Rule 8
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 51 Rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 36 Rule 3(1)
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
• Judicature Act Cap 16 s.37
• Evidence Act Cap 8 ss.101 and 103
• Constitution (Integration of ICT into the Adjudication processes for Courts of Judicature) Practice Direction 2019 Direction 7(1)
• Constitution (Integration of ICT into the Adjudication processes for Courts of Judicature) Practice Direction 2019 Direction 14(5)
• Judicature (Electronic Filing, Service and Virtual Proceedings) Rules 2025 Rules 7(1) and 10(1)

Cases cited (4)

• Senkungu and 4 Others v Mukasa (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2014)
• Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1993)
• Mulindwa George William v Kisubika Joseph (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2014)
• Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)

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