Husaain Hasanali Jivani v Merali Jivra Tajdin & Anor (Civil Suit No. 471 of 2015)

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.

Holding

The court held that the plaintiff's witness statements filed 39 days late could not be struck out where the hearing had not commenced and the interests of justice required that the plaintiff be heard. Extension of time was granted under Order 51 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, with costs of the objection and extension application awarded to the defendants. The court distinguished the case from Seruwagi Mohammed v Yuasa Investments Ltd where the delay was only 8 days and the defendant had gained undue advantage.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; witness statements admitted out of time with costs to defendants; matter reallocated for substantive hearing

Facts

The plaintiff filed suit in the Commercial Division seeking recovery of USD 14,000 paid as part payment for an apartment after rescinding the agreement. The court directed both parties to file and exchange witness statements by 11 April 2017 with hearing set for 6 June 2017. The plaintiff filed witness statements 39 days late and served them on the defendants' counsel on 5 June 2017, one day before the scheduled hearing. The defendants objected to the admission of the late witness statements and sought to have them struck out for non-compliance with court timelines.

Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff's witness statements filed 39 days late should be struck out for non-compliance with court timelines.
2. Whether extension of time should be granted to validate witness statements filed outside the court-ordered timeline.
3. What sanctions, if any, should be imposed for late filing of witness statements in Commercial Court proceedings.

Orders

• The plaintiff is granted leave to file witness statements out of time.
• Witness statements already filed are validated by extension of time under Order 51 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
• Costs of the objection and extension of time awarded to the defendants.
• The file is sent back to the registrar for reallocation to another judge following the transfer of Justice Madrama to another division.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Constitution (Commercial Court) (Practice) Directions rule 5(2)
• Constitution (Commercial Court) (Practice) Directions rule 6(4)
• Constitution (Commercial Court) (Practice) Directions rule 7
• Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 51 rule 6

Cases cited (9)

• Seruwagi Mohammed v Yuasa Investments Ltd (Civil Suit No. 334 of 2013)
• Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1526
• Spear Motors v Attorney General and 2 Others (HCCS No. 692 of 2007)
• Kasirye Byaruhanga & Co. Advocates v Uganda Development Bank (SCCA No. 2 of 1997)
• Devon & Cornwall Autistic Community Trust v Cornwall Council [2015] EWHC 403 (QB)
• Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906
• Clearway Drainage Systems Ltd v Mile Smith Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1258
• Andiazi v Republic [1967] EA 813 (CA)
• Semande v Uganda [1999] 1 EA 321

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• Total Marketing Uganda Limited v Jinja District Land Board & 4 Others (HCT-03-CV-CS 15 of 2017)
• Uganda Young Mens Christian Association v The World Alliance of Young Mens Christian Associations (Trademark Application 67455 of 2020)

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