Wakilii

Departed Asians Custodian Board v Kasaija and 245 others (Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 149 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside interlocutory judgment and for leave to file defence out of time, arising from Civil Suit No. 62 of 2017
Decision
Interlocutory judgment set aside; Applicant granted leave to file defence out of time within 15 days

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 set aside the interlocutory judgment as it was irregularly entered under Order 9 rule 8 CPR for a claim that was not for pecuniary damages or detention of goods. The court granted leave to file a defence out of time under section 33 of the Judicature Act, holding that the interests of justice required the sale transaction between the Applicant and the plaintiff to be fully investigated on merit, notwithstanding the Applicant's gross negligence in failing to file a timely defence.

Outcome

Interlocutory judgment set aside; Applicant granted leave to file defence out of time within 15 days

Facts

The Applicant, Departed Asian Custodian Board, sold land to the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 62 of 2017. The Respondents filed a defence and counterclaim against the plaintiff, the Applicant, and the Registrar of Titles, alleging the sale was void, illegal, and fraudulent. The Applicant and Registrar failed to file a defence to the counterclaim. On 29 November 2018, the Registrar entered interlocutory judgment against them under Order 9 rule 8 CPR. The Applicant's Executive Secretary learned of the matter in 2019 and instructed the legal department to file a defence, but this was not done. In 2022, the Applicant filed this application to set aside the interlocutory judgment and for leave to file a defence out of time.

Issues

  1. Whether the interlocutory judgment entered under Order 9 rule 8 CPR was irregular and should be set aside.
  2. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to file and serve a Written Statement of Defence out of time.
  3. Whether the Applicant was prevented by just cause from filing a defence in time.

Orders

  • The interlocutory judgment entered by the learned Registrar on 29 November 2018 in respect of the Respondent's counter claim in Civil Suit No. 62 of 2017 is set aside.
  • The Applicant is granted leave to file and serve Written Statement of Defence out of time.
  • The Applicant to file the Written Statement of Defence within 15 days from the date of this ruling and accordingly serve it upon the Respondent.
  • The costs of this Application are awarded to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Judgment — Setting Aside — Irregular Entry Under Wrong Rule
An interlocutory judgment entered under Order 9 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules is irregular and liable to be set aside where the claim is not for pecuniary damages only or for detention of goods with or without a claim for pecuniary damages, as the proper procedure is under Order 9 rule 10 read with rule 11.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Negligence of Counsel — Just Cause
Gross negligence on the part of a litigant or its legal department in failing to file a defence in time does not ordinarily constitute just cause for granting leave to file a defence out of time, particularly where the litigant failed to follow up on instructions to ensure compliance.
Civil Procedure — Judicature Act Section 33 — Discretion to Grant Relief — Interests of Justice
Under section 33 of the Judicature Act, the High Court has discretion to grant leave to file a defence out of time where the interests of justice require that all matters in controversy be completely and finally determined, notwithstanding delay or negligence, particularly where the applicant's participation is necessary to investigate the merits of the dispute.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Prejudice and Delay — Balancing Factors
Delay per se is not the overriding factor when considering whether to grant leave to file a defence out of time; the court must balance the prejudice to the other party against the interests of justice in having the matter determined on merit, and prejudice arising from delay can be addressed by an award of costs.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Departed Asians Custodian Board v Kasaija and 245 others (Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCD 149 (26 August 2022)
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.