Wakilii

Haruna Ssentongo v Downtown Bags Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 2117 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 389 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application arising from civil suit for breach of contract, seeking to strike out defendant's 2nd amended defence and counterclaim filed without leave and to stay proceedings pending file reconstitution
Decision
Application dismissed; 2nd amended defence and counterclaim validated; matter to proceed to scheduling conference after file reconstitution

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 validated the defendant's 2nd amended defence and counterclaim despite it being filed without prior leave of court. The court exercised its discretion under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and section 33 of the Judicature Act to validate the belated pleading, finding it meritorious and necessary to resolve all issues in controversy between the parties in a single proceeding. The application to strike out the pleading was dismissed. The court directed parties to submit all pleadings to reconstitute the file within seven days.

Outcome

Application dismissed; 2nd amended defence and counterclaim validated; matter to proceed to scheduling conference after file reconstitution

Facts

On 30 June 2017, the applicant and respondent entered into a contract for the sale of property at Kibuga Block 12 Plot 825 Kisenyi for USD 700,000. The respondent was to pay USD 600,000 upon signing and USD 100,000 upon receipt of complete building plans. The respondent paid USD 605,338 into the applicant's bank account. The applicant filed suit in 2019 (HCCS No. 458 of 2019) alleging breach of contract. The respondent filed a defence and later filed a 2nd amended defence and counterclaim on 28 May 2021 without obtaining prior leave of court. The court file had been missing from the registry for over four years. The applicant brought this application to strike out the 2nd amended defence and counterclaim and to stay proceedings pending file reconstitution.

Issues

  1. Whether the 2nd amended defence and counterclaim filed by the respondent should be struck out for having been filed out of time and without leave of court?
  2. Whether all further proceedings in Civil Suit 458 of 2019 should be stayed pending the restoration of the proper and complete court record?

Orders

  • The application is not allowed.
  • The 2nd amended defence and counterclaim filed on 28th May 2021 is validated and admitted on the court record.
  • All parties are to submit to the Registrar all pleadings ever filed in this case within 7 days from this ruling. Upon submissions of all filed pleadings by both or either party the court file shall be deemed to have been reconstituted.
  • Parties should file their pretrial documents within 7 days after reconstitution of the file.
  • Parties shall appear for scheduling conference/hearing on 9th December 2025 at 9am.
  • Costs of the validation of the 2nd amended defence and counterclaim are awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Leave of Court Required
A defendant cannot file an amended written statement of defence without leave of court, except by way of reply to an amended plaint under Order 6 Rule 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules. An amended written statement of defence requires leave of court pursuant to Order 6 Rule 19.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Validation of Belated Pleadings
Where a limited time has been prescribed for performing any act under the Civil Procedure Rules or by order of court, the court retains authority to extend such period on terms that justice may require. The court may exercise discretion under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and section 33 of the Judicature Act to validate a belated pleading filed without prior leave, to enable complete and final determination of all matters in controversy and avoid multiplicity of suits.
Civil Procedure — Cross-Examination — Discretion of Court
The court has discretionary power to order the attendance for cross-examination of a deponent at the instance of either party under Order 19 rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The exercise of this discretion must be conducted judiciously, considering the equities of all parties and the specific circumstances of each case. Cross-examination should pass the test of reasonableness and serve practical utility in enabling the court to arrive at a just decision.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Treatment of Falsehoods — Doctrine of Severability
Where an affidavit contains falsehoods, the court should apply the doctrine of severability and sever the offending paragraphs while retaining the rest of the affidavit, provided the retained paragraphs are of evidential value. The court has moved away from the strict Bitaitana Rule which required striking out the entire affidavit if any part contained falsehoods.
Civil Procedure — Missing Court Records — Reconstitution
The process of reconstructing a court file must not be conducted clandestinely by a single party. Where a court file goes missing at pleading stage before any hearing has taken place, the court may direct parties to submit all pleadings to the registrar for reconstitution rather than staying proceedings.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (12)

  • Gunter Piber and Another v E. Krall Investments (U) Ltd and 4 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 103 of 2008)
  • Tushabe Chris v Co-operative Bank Ltd (In receivership/statutory Liquidation) (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 08 of 2018)
  • Giuliano Cariggio v Claudio Casadio (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 01 of 2013)
  • Anthony Okello v Ojok B'Leo and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 26 of 2006)
  • Sirasi Bitaitana and 4 Others v Emmanuel Kananura (High Court Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1976)
  • Joseph Mulenga V Photo focus (U) Ltd (1996)
  • Kizza Besigye v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta and Another (Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Ephraim Mwesigwa Kamugwa v The Management Committee of Nyamirima Primary School (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 101 of 2011)
  • East African Steel Corporation Ltd v State-wide Insurance Co. Ltd [1998-2001] HCB 33
  • Jacob Mutabazi v The Seventh Day Adventist Church (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 088 of 2011)
  • Nsimbe Godfrey v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 2014)
  • Schoombee and Another v The State ZACC 501

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.

Haruna Ssentongo v Downtown Bags Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 2117 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 389 (22 October 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.