Wakilii

Jjunju and Another v Zalwango and Another (Miscellaneous Application 2639 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 373 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Miscellaneous application arising from Civil Suit No. 646 of 2022 seeking to strike out joint written statement of defence and counterclaim for procedural irregularity
Decision
Joint written statement of defence and counterclaim struck off record for procedural non-compliance; respondents may apply to file defence 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

Held that a written statement of defence filed through ECCMIS and served on the opposite party without the registrar's signature and court seal is defective and non-existent. The duty rests on the filing party to ensure pleadings are validated, signed, and sealed by court before service. Unsigned and unsealed pleadings uploaded on ECCMIS remain drafts and cannot be relied upon.

Outcome

Joint written statement of defence and counterclaim struck off record for procedural non-compliance; respondents may apply to file defence out of time

Facts

The first applicant claimed the respondents were trespassers on his land. He filed Civil Suit No. 646 of 2023 for trespass. The respondents filed a joint written statement of defence and counterclaim through ECCMIS. The applicants received copies that bore neither the registrar's signature nor the court seal. The applicants brought this miscellaneous application seeking to strike out the defence and counterclaim on grounds of procedural irregularity, arguing the pleadings were invalid as they had not been signed and sealed by court before service. The first respondent, through her attorney, argued that documents filed via ECCMIS are served as drafts pending validation and that the opposite party should follow up to obtain signed copies from the system. The second and third respondents did not respond.

Issues

  1. Whether the joint written statement of defence served onto the 1st applicant in HCCS No. 646 of 2023 was valid?
  2. Whether the powers of attorney attached on the Joint Written statement of defence and counter claim in HCCS No. 646 of 2023 is invalid?
  3. Whether the tenancy agreement attached on the Joint written statement of defence in HCCS No. 646 of 2023 is invalid and not enforceable at law?
  4. Whether the 2nd applicant was served with summons to file a defence in HCCS No. 646 of 2023?
  5. Whether the affidavit in reply by the 1st respondent offends the law regarding affidavits?

Orders

  • The joint written statement of defence and counter claim together with the attachments thereunto in HCCS No. 646 of 2023 is struck out/off the record.
  • No order as to costs in this application and the main suit Civil Suit No. 646 of 2023.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Written Statement of Defence — Filing and Service Requirements Under ECCMIS
A written statement of defence is complete upon compliance with Order 8 rule 1 and Order 9 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which require that the defence be sealed with the official seal showing the date of sealing before service on the plaintiff. The introduction of ECCMIS does not alter this requirement.
Civil Procedure — ECCMIS — Status of Unsigned and Unsealed Documents
Pleadings or documents uploaded on ECCMIS that require endorsement and seal of court are considered as drafts until they are endorsed by the registrar and sealed by court. Where documents are not endorsed and sealed, they are deemed not to be in existence and cannot be relied upon.
Civil Procedure — Written Statement of Defence — Duty to Ensure Validation Before Service
The responsibility to ensure that documents filed through ECCMIS are validated by court rests with the filing party. It is the duty of the defendant to follow up on draft pleadings filed on ECCMIS to ensure validation, signing, and sealing by court before serving the signed and sealed pleadings on the opposite party.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (2)

  • M/s Simon Tendo Kabenge Advocates and Another v Mineral Access Systems Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 570 of 2011)
  • Lawrence Martin Mugerwa Musisi v Mugubi Stephen Banja and Another (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 15 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jjunju_and_Another_v_Zalwango_and_Another_(Miscellaneous_Application_2639_of_2023)_[2023]_UGHCLD_373_(31_October_2023)
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.