Wakilii

Henry Mpima and Others v Nambwere Erina Bisobye Nalongo and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 3296 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 112 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application arising from civil suit seeking to strike out written statement of defence and counterclaim
Decision
Counterclaim struck out as against 2nd and 3rd applicants; main suit to proceed on merit between original parties

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 partially allowed the application. The counterclaim against the 2nd and 3rd applicants was struck out for failure to serve them within 21 days as required by Order 8 rule 9 and Order 5 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The written statement of defence and counterclaim as against the 1st applicant was upheld as properly signed and filed with court fees paid.

Outcome

Counterclaim struck out as against 2nd and 3rd applicants; main suit to proceed on merit between original parties

Facts

The 1st applicant filed HCCS No. 823 of 2024 against the respondents on 3 September 2024. Summons to file defence were served on 19 September 2024. The respondents filed a written statement of defence and counterclaim on 3 October 2024 at 9:03 pm, which was endorsed by the Deputy Registrar on 10 October 2024. In the counterclaim, the respondents added the 2nd and 3rd applicants as counter defendants but did not serve them with the counterclaim. The 2nd and 3rd applicants only learned of the counterclaim later through the 1st applicant. The applicants brought this application seeking to strike out the written statement of defence and counterclaim on grounds that it was improperly filed, unsigned, and that the 2nd and 3rd applicants were not served. The respondents did not file a reply or appear in court.

Issues

  1. Whether the written statement of defence and counterclaim should be struck out for being unsigned and improperly filed.
  2. Whether the counterclaim against the 2nd and 3rd applicants should be struck out for want of service.

Orders

  • The counterclaim in HCCS No. 823 of 2024 against the 2nd and 3rd applicants/counter defendants is hereby struck off for want of service.
  • HCCS No. 823 of 2024 between the respondents/plaintiffs and 1st applicant should be heard on merit.
  • The applicants shall meet their own costs since the respondents did not oppose the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Counterclaims — Service Requirements — Addition of New Parties
Where a counterclaim introduces new parties who are not parties to the original suit, they must be summoned to appear by being served with a copy of the defence in accordance with the rules regulating service of summons under Order 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Time Limits — Counterclaims
Service of a counterclaim on new parties must be effected within 21 days from the date of endorsement by court. Failure to serve within this period renders the counterclaim liable to be struck out as against the unserved parties.

Legislation cited (12)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.26
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.30
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.8 r.9
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.8
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.11(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.2
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.20
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.5 r.1(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.5 r.1(3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Henry_Mpima_and_Others_v_Nambwere_Erina_Bisobye_Nalongo_and_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._3296_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_112_(20_June_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.