Wakilii

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

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 387 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application arising from Civil Suit No. 646 of 2022 seeking to strike out joint written statement of defence and counterclaim for procedural defects
Decision
Joint written statement of defence and counterclaim struck out; respondents/defendants 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 is incomplete until endorsed by the registrar and sealed by court. Defendants have a duty to ensure validation before service. A defence served without signature and seal is defective, non-existent, and cannot be relied upon. Application allowed; joint written statement of defence and counterclaim struck out.

Outcome

Joint written statement of defence and counterclaim struck out; respondents/defendants may apply to file defence out of time

Facts

The 1st applicant claimed the respondents were trespassing on his land. When he sought to regularise tenancies, the 1st respondent claimed ownership. The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 646 of 2022 for trespass. The respondents/defendants filed a joint written statement of defence and counterclaim which the applicants received without signature of the registrar or seal of court. The applicants contended the pleading was served unsigned and unsealed through the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS) and was therefore invalid. The 1st respondent's attorney argued that physical copies were served pending validation and that the opposite party should follow up to obtain sealed copies from ECCMIS. The court found that the respondents failed to ensure validation before service.

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.
  • In the alternative, the respondents/defendants in HCCS No. 646 of 2023 can move court to have the joint written statement of defence filed out of time and the same be validated by court.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Written Statement of Defence — Filing and Service Requirements — Effect of ECCMIS
A written statement of defence is complete only when it fulfils the requirements of Order 8 rule 1 and Order 9 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which require the defence to be delivered to the proper officer who seals it with the official seal showing the date, and then returns the sealed copy for service on the plaintiff.
Civil Procedure — Electronic Filing — ECCMIS — Validation and Sealing — Responsibility of Filing Party
Pleadings or documents uploaded on the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS) that require endorsement and seal of court are considered drafts until endorsed by the registrar and sealed by court. It is the responsibility of the party who files or uploads the documents to ensure that the documents are validated and competent before service on the opposite party.
Civil Procedure — Defective Pleadings — Written Statement of Defence Served Without Signature and Seal — Legal Effect
A joint written statement of defence and counterclaim served on the opposite party without signature of the registrar and seal of court is defective, non-existent, and cannot be relied upon by the parties in court.

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_387_(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.