Wakilii

General International Technical Co. (L.L.C) v AYA Investments (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 2546 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 152 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out written statement of defence filed out of time without leave in underlying civil suit for breach of contract
Decision
Written statement of defence struck out for being filed out of time without leave

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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 service of summons on a corporation through its CEO who directed a legal officer to receive the documents constituted effective service under Order 29 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. A written statement of defence filed 19 days after service, exceeding the mandatory 15-day period under Order 8 rule 1(2), was struck out where the defendant failed to seek leave to file out of time.

Outcome

Written statement of defence struck out for being filed out of time without leave

Facts

The Applicant filed Civil Suit No. 873 of 2023 seeking recovery of USD 145,250 for breach of contract. Summons to file a defence were extracted on 4th September 2023 and served on the Respondent on 7th September 2023. According to the affidavit of service, the process server attended the Respondent's CEO's office at Win 5 Hotel, Nakasero. The CEO, Mr. Muhammed Hamid, instructed a person identifying himself as David, the company's legal officer, to receive the summons and plaint on his behalf. David acknowledged receipt on 7th September 2023. The Respondent filed its written statement of defence on 26th September 2023, 19 days after service, without seeking leave of court. The Respondent disputed the service, claiming it did not employ anyone named David and that the process server had never met its director. The Applicant brought this application to strike out the defence as filed out of time.

Issues

  1. Whether there was proper and effective service of the summons in Civil Suit No. 873 of 2023 on the Respondent.
  2. Whether the Respondent's written statement of defence was filed out of time.

Orders

  • The Respondent's written statement of defence dated 26th September 2023 is struck off the record.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Service of Process — Corporations — Effective Service
Service of summons on a corporation is effective under Order 29 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules where the process server serves the company's CEO at the registered place of business and the CEO directs a legal officer to receive the documents on his behalf, even if the legal officer is not a secretary or director, because a legal officer qualifies as a principal officer of the company when legal documents are being served.
Service of Process — Effective Service — Test
Effective service means service that produces the desired or intended result, namely making the defendant aware of the suit so that the defendant has the opportunity to respond by defending or admitting liability. Where a defendant files a written statement of defence following service, this demonstrates that the defendant became aware of the suit and the service was therefore effective.
Written Statement of Defence — Time Limits — Mandatory Compliance
Under Order 8 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, a defendant served with summons must file a defence within 15 days after service unless the court makes some other or further order. A written statement of defence filed 19 days after service without leave of court is filed out of time and liable to be struck out. The court has discretion to extend time if sufficient cause is shown, but where the defendant neither seeks leave to file out of time nor applies to validate a defence already filed, the court cannot condone the illegality.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (12)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Ltd v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Spencon Services Limited v Onencan Habib (Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2016)
  • Kiganga and Associates Gold Mining Co. Ltd v Universal Fold NL [2000] 1 EA 134
  • Kampala City Council v Apollo Hotel Corporation [1985] HCB 77
  • Geoffrey Gatete and Another v William Kyobe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
  • M/s Semuyaba, Iga & Co. Advocates and Another v Attorney General of the Republic of Sudan and 2 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2022)
  • Crane Bank Ltd v Kabuye Victoria (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 719 of 2007)
  • Hon. Maj. Gen (Rtd) Kahinda Otafire v The New Vision Printing and Publishing Corporation and Others (Civil Suit No. 505 of 2019)
  • Hajji Ali Seguya v Namutebi Madina (Miscellaneous Application No. 242 of 2024)
  • Anne Kahunde Manyindo v Tom Atuhaire Mugisa (Miscellaneous Application No. 23 of 2022)
  • Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Hadondi Daniel v Yolam Egondi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2003)

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

↓ Download PDF

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

General International Technical Co. (L.L.C) v AYA Investments (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 2546 of 2023) [2025] UGCommC 152 (12 May 2025)
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.