Wakilii

Gama Distillers Limited v Bikanza (Civil Suit No. 60 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 200 · 2022 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on oral application to dismiss suit for abatement under Order 11A of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to trial

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (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 4 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 5 citing cases on record, 5 in the most recent three data years. 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

The court held that Order 11A of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019, requiring summons for directions within 28 days, should not be applied strictly and universally but on a case-by-case basis considering the facts and context. Where the plaintiff made efforts to prosecute the matter and summons were extracted but not served due to administrative circumstances, the suit should not abate solely on the basis that the 28-day period elapsed.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to trial

Facts

The plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 60 of 2021 seeking to recover UGX 115,439,700 arising from a contract of supply of liquor bottles and sachets. Summons to file defence were issued on 14 September 2021 and served on the defendant. The defendant filed his defence on 22 September 2021. Summons for directions were signed by the Registrar on 9 December 2021, scheduling the matter for directions on 13 December 2021. On 13 December 2021, neither party appeared and the Registrar forwarded the file to the presiding judge. Hearing notices were extracted for 22 June 2022 but were not served. Fresh notices were taken out on 29 August 2022 for mention on 31 August 2022. When the matter came up, counsel for the defendant raised a preliminary point of law contending that the suit had abated under Order 11A Rules 2 and 6 of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019 because summons for directions were not taken out within 28 days after closure of pleadings.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff's suit abated under Order 11A Rules 2 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules as Amended.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Matter fixed for mention on 3 October 2022 for further directions.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Abatement of Suits — Order 11A Rules 2 and 6 of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019 — Interpretation of 'shall' in legislative context
The auxiliary verb 'shall' in Order 11A Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019, though ordinarily a word of command denoting mandatory obligation, should not be given a strict universal interpretation at the initial stages of implementation of the new rules but should be applied on a case-by-case basis considering the context, facts, and whether a strict interpretation would cause injustice to the litigants.
Civil Procedure — Abatement of Suits — Purpose of Order 11A — Application on case-by-case basis
Order 11A of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019 was intended to speed up trials by curtailing unnecessary delays, not to be used as a sword against parties' live claims by strangling them under the guise that the summons for directions procedure was not strictly adhered to. Each case should be considered on its own merits and peculiarities, and the application of the order should not be universal but case-by-case.
Civil Procedure — Abatement of Suits — Constitutional right to fair hearing — Articles 28 and 44
Where a plaintiff has made efforts to prosecute the matter and summons for directions were extracted but not served due to administrative circumstances, it would not serve any great purpose and would violate the constitutional right to a fair hearing under Articles 28 and 44 to have the suit abated under Order 11A Rules 2 and 6 solely on the basis that the summons were not taken out within 28 days after closure of pleadings.
Civil Procedure — Abatement of Suits — Gradual application of new procedural rules to avoid injustice
The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019 are still new and introduced drastic changes in the justice system. A strict interpretation of the rules at an initial stage would cause great injustice to the parties. The rules should be applied gradually so as not to cause injustice to the litigants.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (4)

  • Abdul Ddamulira v MSS Xsabo Power Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 46 of 2021 arising from Civil Suit No. 21 of 2020)
  • Geofrey Waswa v Amy for Africa Ltd & 2 others (Civil Suit No. 127 of 2020)
  • Kaginu Moses Gavad & 7 others v Schatawa Muhammad & 11 others (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2020 arising from Civil Suit No. 145 of 2020)
  • Settaba Fullugensio v Kicito Musoke & Anor (Temporary Injunction Appeal No. 452 of 2020 arising from MA No. 11000 of 2020 arising from Civil Suit No. 984 of 2020)

Cases citing this judgment (4)

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.

Gama Distillers Limited v Bikanza (Civil Suit No. 60 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 200 (2 September 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.