Wakilii

Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP v Wabyona (Miscellaneous Application No. 369 of 2020)

High Court · [2020] UGCOMMC 22 · 2020 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under Order 9 rules 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 33 of the Judicature Act to set aside service of summons on grounds of improper service outside jurisdiction and lack of jurisdiction
Decision
Application granted; service of summons set aside; suit dismissed as against Applicant for lack of jurisdiction

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Order 5 rules 22 and 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules mandatorily require leave of court before serving summons outside jurisdiction. Legal Notice No. 6 of 2019 complements but does not replace these procedural requirements — it provides the mode of electronic service after jurisdiction has been properly established. Service of summons without obtaining leave is irregular under Order 9 rule 3. Application allowed; service set aside; court has no jurisdiction over Applicant.

Outcome

Application granted; service of summons set aside; suit dismissed as against Applicant for lack of jurisdiction

Facts

Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales, was retained by the Attorney General of Uganda to provide legal services in an ICSID arbitration commenced in London against the Government of Uganda. All legal services, including reviewing and witnessing a Settlement Deed, were executed in London, England. Jackson Wabyona filed High Court Civil Suit No. 296 of 2020 naming the Applicant as a defendant, claiming professional negligence. The Deputy Registrar granted leave for electronic service under Legal Notice No. 6 of 2019 in Miscellaneous Application No. 313 of 2020. The Applicant was served with summons by email but no application for leave to serve outside jurisdiction was filed under Order 5 rules 22 and 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Applicant challenged the service and the court's jurisdiction.

Issues

  1. Whether the proper procedure for service of summons outside of jurisdiction was followed.
  2. Whether the court has jurisdiction over the Applicant under the circumstances.
  3. Whether Legal Notice No. 6 of 2019 dispenses with the requirement to obtain leave under Order 5 rules 22 and 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules before serving summons outside jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Service of summons on the Applicant in High Court Civil Suit No. 296 of 2020 issued by the Deputy Registrar in Miscellaneous Application No. 313 of 2020 is set aside.
  • The Applicant is declared as having not been duly served.
  • Any order giving leave to serve summons on the Applicant out of jurisdiction is discharged and vacated.
  • Court has no jurisdiction over the Applicant in respect of the claim or relief sought in High Court Civil Suit No. 296 of 2020.
  • High Court Civil Suit No. 296 of 2020 is dismissed as against the Applicant.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Summons Outside Jurisdiction — Requirement for Leave of Court
Order 5 rules 22 and 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules mandatorily require a party to obtain leave of court before serving summons on a defendant outside Uganda. Leave may only be granted where the applicant proves by affidavit that the case is a proper one for service out of jurisdiction. The word 'shall' in these provisions is to be interpreted in a mandatory sense to avoid inconsistencies, injustice, and waste of resources where jurisdiction has not been established.
Civil Procedure — Electronic Service — Relationship between Legal Notice No. 6 of 2019 and Civil Procedure Rules
Legal Notice No. 6 of 2019 supports the efficacy of the Civil Procedure Rules and guides the integration of ICT in court adjudication processes, with emphasis on electronic filing and service of documents. However, it complements rather than replaces the procedural requirements for service outside jurisdiction under Order 5 rules 22-28. After obtaining leave under Order 5 rule 22, a party may be guided by paragraph 7(2)(c) of Legal Notice No. 6 which allows service through email or other electronic communications. Legal Notice No. 6 provides the mode of service after jurisdiction has been established, not a substitute for establishing jurisdiction.
Civil Procedure — Irregular Service — Effect on Jurisdiction
Where a party fails to follow the mandatory procedure for service of summons outside jurisdiction under Order 5 rules 22 and 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules by not seeking or obtaining leave of court, the service is irregular within the meaning of Order 9 rule 3 and the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the defendant. Service without leave must be set aside.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (8)

  • Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP and Another v Wabyona (Miscellaneous Application No. 349 of 2020)
  • Mbabazi v Kampala Financial Services Ltd & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1656 of 2017)
  • [2019] KLR
  • International Tin Association Limited v Kerilee Investments Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 368 of 2019)
  • De Smet v Nakassanga (High Court Civil Suit No. 387 of 2011)
  • [2013] UKSC 44
  • Kampala Capital City Authority v Kabandize & 20 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2014)
  • Sitenda Sebalu v Njuba and the Electoral Commission (Election Appeal No. 26 of 2007)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP v Wabyona (Miscellaneous Application No. 369 of 2020) [2020] UGCommC 22 (14 July 2020)
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.