Wakilii

Industrial Graphics Limited v Charles Kashaija (Miscellaneous Application 30 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1215 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to file a reply to written statement of defence and counterclaim out of time, arising from HCT-05-CV-CS-0030-2024
Decision
Applicant granted leave to file reply to written statement of defence and counterclaim out of time

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 held that the application was not time-barred because the delay in service was attributable to the court's administrative process of fixing a hearing date, which was beyond the applicant's control. The court further held that the failure of the applicant's clerk to inform counsel of the receipt of the written statement of defence and counterclaim constituted sufficient reason to grant leave to file the reply out of time. The negligence of counsel or their servant should not be visited upon the client.

Outcome

Applicant granted leave to file reply to written statement of defence and counterclaim out of time

Facts

Industrial Graphics Limited filed a civil suit against Charles Kashaija. The respondent filed a written statement of defence with a counterclaim on 22 April 2024. The defence was received by a clerk at the applicant's law firm when counsel with personal conduct of the matter were not in chambers. The clerk failed to notify counsel of the receipt, and the document was not placed on the file. By the time counsel became aware of the defence and counterclaim, the time allowed by law to file a reply had expired. The applicant then filed this application on 5 July 2024 seeking leave to file the reply out of time. The application was endorsed on the same day but was only fixed for hearing on 17 September 2024. The respondent objected on grounds that the application was served out of time (41 days after endorsement) and that the applicant had not shown sufficient cause for the extension.

Issues

  1. Whether the application was served out of time and therefore bad in law.
  2. Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant extension of time to file a reply to the written statement of defence and counterclaim.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • Application granted.
  • Leave granted to the applicant to file a reply to the written statement of defence and counterclaim out of time.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Time Limits — Distinction Between Service of Summons to File Defence and Service of Applications
The mandatory time limits for service of summons to file a defence under Order 5 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules do not apply in the same manner to interlocutory applications where the application has been endorsed by the Registrar but is pending fixation of a hearing date by the trial judge, as the applicant has no control over the court's administrative process of scheduling.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause — Negligence of Counsel's Servant
The failure of a law firm's clerk or receptionist to inform counsel of the receipt of a pleading constitutes sufficient reason for granting an extension of time to file a reply out of time, as a servant's failure to perform his duty to his employer should not be visited upon the client.
Civil Procedure — Evidence in Interlocutory Applications — Hearsay — Deponent's Personal Knowledge of Reasons for Delay
Where a deponent in an affidavit supporting an application for extension of time explains the reasons why a step was not taken in time based on his own knowledge of events within his law firm, such evidence does not constitute hearsay merely because it refers to the actions or omissions of other persons within the firm.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (4)

  • Kanyabwera v Tumwebaze [2005] 2 EA 86
  • Western Uganda Cotton Company Limited v Dr George Asaba and 3 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 353 of 2009)
  • Bishop Jacinta Kibuuka v The Uganda Catholic Lawyers Society and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 696 of 2018)
  • National Pharmacy Ltd v Kampala City Council [1979] HCB 132

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Industrial Graphics Limited v Charles Kashaija (Miscellaneous Application 30 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 1215 (8 September 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.