Wakilii

Katongole Robert and Others v Ssesanga Deo Lukoota and Others (Miscellaneous Application No 97 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 857 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to file a written statement of defence out of time in a pending civil suit
Decision
Application dismissed as incompetent for want of endorsement; respondents/plaintiffs directed to extract and serve summons, after which defendants may file their defence within 15 days

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 dismissed the application for leave to file a defence out of time, holding that a Notice of Motion not endorsed and sealed by a registrar is a fundamental, incurable defect rendering the application a nullity; electronic filing on ECCMIS does not relieve a party of the duty to follow up for endorsement. Examining the suit record on its own motion, the court found no summons had ever been issued and the affidavit of service was insufficient, so no valid service occurred. Estoppel could not cure this because there is no estoppel against a statute. Despite dismissal, the respondents were denied costs and ordered to extract and serve summons, after which the defendants may file a defence.

Outcome

Application dismissed as incompetent for want of endorsement; respondents/plaintiffs directed to extract and serve summons, after which defendants may file their defence within 15 days

Facts

The respondents filed Civil Suit No. 61 of 2025 against the applicants seeking, among others, a declaration that the late Israel Sekyenyi was a bona fide occupant of the suit kibanja. The applicants said they never received summons to file a defence and, being laymen unaware of court timelines, applied for leave to file a written statement of defence out of time. The respondents opposed the application and raised preliminary objections that it was defective for non-joinder of a necessary party and a nullity for not being endorsed and sealed by court. The applicants admitted serving an unendorsed Notice of Motion, arguing they acted in good faith as the respondents' counsel had indicated willingness to consent. On examining the suit record, the court found no summons had ever been issued on ECCMIS, and the affidavit of service sworn by advocate Kyagaba Sulaiman referred to non-existent annextures and unidentified recipients, failing to prove service on any defendant.

Issues

  1. Whether the Notice of Motion commencing the application was competent given that it was not endorsed and sealed by a registrar of the court.
  2. Whether the applicants should be granted leave to file their written statement of defence out of time.
  3. Whether valid service of summons was effected on the defendants in the underlying civil suit.
  4. Whether the defendants were estopped by their conduct from challenging non-service of summons.
  5. Whether the respondents were entitled to costs of the dismissed application.

Orders

  • Miscellaneous Application No. 97 of 2025 is hereby dismissed.
  • Each party will bear its own costs of the application.
  • The Respondents/Plaintiffs are directed to extract summons to file a defence and serve the Applicants/Defendants in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • The Applicants/Defendants shall file a written statement of defence within 15 days from the date of service.
  • No order is made as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Notice of Motion — Endorsement and Sealing by Registrar
A Notice of Motion that is not signed by a judge, registrar or officer appointed for that purpose and sealed with the seal of the court is fundamentally and incurably defective, rendering the application incompetent and a nullity.
Civil Procedure — Electronic Filing (ECCMIS) — Duty to Obtain Court Endorsement
Documents uploaded on ECCMIS that require endorsement and sealing remain drafts until endorsed by the registrar, and the advent of ECCMIS does not amend the Civil Procedure Act or Rules; a party bears the duty to follow up with court to ensure its document is validated and to serve an endorsed copy.
Civil Procedure — Service of Summons — Sufficiency of Affidavit of Service and Court's Duty to Examine Record
Where no summons has been issued and the affidavit of service references non-existent annextures and unidentified recipients, service is not proved; the court has power under Order 5 Rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules to examine the record and determine whether service was effected even absent a formal application.
Civil Procedure — Estoppel — No Estoppel Against a Statute
The doctrine of estoppel cannot override statutory provisions or requirements, so a party's participation in interlocutory proceedings does not estop it from challenging non-service where extraction and service of summons is a requirement of law.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion to Deny Costs to a Successful Party
Under section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act costs follow the event unless the court for good cause orders otherwise, and the court may in its judicious discretion deny costs to a successful party whose own omissions occasioned the proceedings.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (4)

  • Jjunju Frank and Another v Zalwango Immy and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 2639 of 2023)
  • Isingoma Michael v LDC (Miscellaneous Application No. 234 of 2019)
  • CL Risk Management Services and Another v Augustine Kasozi and Another (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 31 of 2022)
  • Nabwire Jane v Nanteza Irene (Civil Appeal No. 122 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Katongole Robert and Others v Ssesanga Deo Lukoota and Others (Miscellaneous Application No 97 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 857 (23 July 2026)
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.