Wakilii

Emirates Safaris v The Development Analyst (Miscellaneous Application 458 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 178 · 2022 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection to late filing of affidavit in reply in a miscellaneous application
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on merits

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 held that Order 12 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which prescribes a 15-day time limit for filing affidavits in reply, applies to alternative dispute resolution contexts and not generally to all affidavits in reply. Following Dr Lam-Lagoro James v Muni University, the court held that affidavits in reply need only be filed before the hearing date within a reasonable time allowing the adverse party to respond. The Respondent's affidavit filed before the hearing date was allowed.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on merits

Facts

The Applicant filed a miscellaneous application. The Respondent was served with the notice of motion on 8 September 2022, one day before the scheduled hearing. The court allowed the Respondent to file an affidavit in reply before the next hearing date without specifying a time restriction. The Respondent filed the affidavit in reply on 4 November 2022, before the hearing date of 7 November 2022. The Respondent had been out of Kampala and was only available four days before the hearing date. The Applicant objected, arguing that the affidavit should have been filed within 15 days of service as required by Order 12 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and sought to have it struck out.

Issues

  1. Whether an affidavit in reply filed by the Respondent outside the 15-day period prescribed by Order 12 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules should be struck out.

Orders

  • The Applicant's objection to the Respondent's affidavit in reply is dismissed.
  • The Respondent's affidavit in reply is allowed and admitted.
  • The application is to proceed on its merits with the affidavit in reply considered.
  • The Applicant is granted leave to file an affidavit in rejoinder before the next hearing date if required.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits in Reply — Time Limits for Filing — Applicability of Order 12 Rule 3 CPR
Order 12 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which prescribes a 15-day time limit for filing affidavits in reply, applies specifically to alternative dispute resolution contexts and not generally to all affidavits in reply in interlocutory applications.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits in Reply — Distinction Between Affidavits and Pleadings
An affidavit in reply is evidence on oath rather than a pleading in the strict sense, and time constraints applicable to defences may be misplaced when applied to affidavits. The Rules Committee's silence on general time limits for affidavits in reply indicates intended flexibility in their treatment by courts.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits in Reply — Filing Before Hearing Date — Reasonable Time
An affidavit in reply should be filed and served within a reasonable time before the hearing date, sufficient to allow the adverse party a fair opportunity to respond. An affidavit filed before the hearing date should not be struck out but the filing party may be penalized in costs if an adjournment is necessitated.
Civil Procedure — Substantive Justice Over Technicalities — Article 126(2)(e) Constitution
In the absence of demonstrated prejudice to the opposing party, courts should allow affidavits in reply filed before the hearing date and hear matters on their merits without regard to technical objections, in accordance with Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution which requires substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (2)

  • Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Dr Lam-Lagoro James v Muni University (Miscellaneous Cause No. 0007 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Emirates Safaris v The Development Analyst (Miscellaneous Application 458 of 2022) [2022] UGCommC 178 (19 November 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.