Fort Portal Municipal Council v Globe World Engineering (U) (Ltd) (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 046 OF 2018)
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.
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 service of summons on an unnamed woman in the central registry of Fort Portal Municipal Council was effective service where the same person received subsequent interim injunction orders which the Town Clerk acknowledged. The court found that the central registry forms part of the Town Clerk's office and that the person who received service was effectively the Town Clerk's secretary. Application to set aside ex-parte order dismissed.
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Facts
The respondent instituted a civil suit against Fort Portal Municipal Council for breach of a revenue collection contract. Court issued summons on 10 May 2018 requiring the applicant to file a written statement of defence. The summons were served on an unnamed woman in the applicant's central registry. When no defence was filed, the court on 4 June 2018 ordered the suit be heard ex-parte. The applicant became aware of the suit when served with an interim injunction order. The applicant filed this application seeking to set aside the ex-parte order and enlarge time to file a defence, arguing there was no proper service because the woman was not empowered to accept service on behalf of the Town Clerk as required by Local Government regulations.
Issues
- Whether there was proper service of summons on Fort Portal Municipal Council.
- Whether the applicant was guilty of inordinate delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte order.
- Whether the order to hear the suit ex-parte should be set aside and time enlarged to file a written statement of defence.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (6)
- Civil Procedure Act s.96
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 Rule 10
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 51 Rule 6
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rules 1 and 3
- Local Governments Act 3rd Schedule Regulation 26(1)
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.