Devine Care Ministries v Passions Services Limited (Civil Appeal 42 of 2019)

Observed later treatment

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

Held that the Appellant filed its defence and counterclaim within time when calculated according to Order 51 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as the 15-day deadline fell on a public holiday and filing on the next business day was timely. While the Respondent filed its reply to the counterclaim out of time without leave and technically had no locus to be heard, the trial magistrate's decision to allow late filing and hear the matter inter parties did not occasion prejudice to the Appellant. Matters of procedure are not of a fundamental nature, and substantive justice should prevail over procedural technicalities. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; trial court's decision to allow late reply and set aside exparte judgment upheld

Facts

The Respondent filed a civil suit and served summons on the Appellant on 12 January 2018. The Appellant filed its defence and counterclaim on 29 January 2018 and served the Respondent on 9 February 2018. The Respondent filed a reply to the counterclaim on 5 March 2018, more than 15 days after service. On 29 May 2018, the Appellant obtained an exparte judgment on its counterclaim on the ground that the reply had been filed late. When the counterclaim came up for formal proof on 28 August 2018, the Respondent's counsel made an oral application to set aside the exparte order. The trial magistrate allowed the application and set aside the exparte order. The Appellant appealed on three grounds: that it had filed its defence on time, that the Respondent had no locus to address court having filed late, and that the exparte judgment was irregularly set aside by oral application.

Issues

1. Whether the Appellant filed its Written Statement of Defence and counterclaim out of time.
2. Whether the Trial Chief Magistrate erred in allowing Counsel for the Respondent to make submissions at the hearing of the counterclaim when no defence to the counterclaim had been filed within the prescribed time.
3. Whether the Trial Chief Magistrate erred in setting aside the exparte judgment in the counterclaim based on an irregular oral application.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 8 Rule 1(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 51 Rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 51 Rule 8
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 8 Rule 18(3)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 Rule 12

Cases cited (5)

• Simon Tendo Kabenge Advocates & Anor v Mineral Access Systems Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 570 of 2011)
• Wangubo Sefu v Bashiri Magoola & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2012)
• Attorney General & Uganda Land Commission v Namaiba Tea Estates Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 758 of 2012)
• Francis Wazarwahi Bwengye v Haki .W. Bonera supra
• Nanjibhai Prabohusdas & Co. Ltd v Standard Bank Ltd [1968] EA 670

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• Ereu Vincent and Others v Adebo Regina (Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2023)
• Kiconco and Another v Jami Construction Limited and Another ( Administrator of the Estate of the late Kanagwa) (Miscellaneous Application No. 2140 of 2021)

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