Wakilii

Kagina Paul and Others v Tusiime Ambrose (Miscellaneous Application 184 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 436 · 2025 Ruling Incomplete AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Miscellaneous application arising from Court of Appeal Civil Appeal 181 of 2015, which arose from High Court Civil Appeal 73 of 2014
Decision
Ruling Incomplete

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 considered a preliminary objection that a miscellaneous application was served outside the 21-day period prescribed by Order 5 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application was endorsed on 9 May 2024 but served on the respondent's lawyers on 1 July 2024, 53 days later, without seeking an extension of time. The judgment text is incomplete and does not contain the court's final determination.

Outcome

Ruling Incomplete

Facts

The applicants, administrators of the estate of the late Alfred and Hilda Mutashwera, filed a miscellaneous application on 8 May 2024 under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 1 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application was endorsed by the Deputy Registrar on 9 May 2024. The respondent, administrator of the estate of the late David and Conatance Ryangombe, filed an affidavit in reply on 18 July 2024 raising a preliminary objection that the application had abated due to non-service within the prescribed time. The respondent contended that summons were issued on 9 May 2024 but served on his lawyers on 1 July 2024, outside the 21-day period prescribed by Order 5 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicants argued that summons were served at the respondent's residence on 27 May 2024, and that the notice of motion was served on the respondent's lawyers on 1 July 2024. The applicants invoked Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, arguing for substantive justice without undue technicalities.

Issues

  1. Whether the miscellaneous application was served within the time prescribed by Order 5 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the application abated due to service outside the prescribed time limit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Time Limits for Service of Notice of Motion
A Notice of Motion must be served within 21 days from the date of issue in accordance with Order 5 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, as required by Order 49 Rule 2 which provides that all notices and documents shall be served in the manner provided for service of summons.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Extension of Time for Service
Where service of summons is not effected within 21 days from the date of issue, the time may be extended on application to the court made within 15 days after the expiration of the 21 days, showing sufficient reasons for the extension.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (1)

  • Ejab Family Investment and Another v Centenary Bank and Another (Civil Suit No. 1 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kagina Paul and Others v Tusiime Ambrose (Miscellaneous Application 184 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 436 (18 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.