Wakilii

Kiddawalime Bakery Ltd & 2 Ors v Unga Millers (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 975 of 2017)

High Court · [2018] UGCOMMC 52 · 2018 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to file defence arising from Civil Suit No. 420 of 2017
Decision
Applicants granted extension of time to file written statement of defence

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 High Court held that negligence of a litigant's former legal advisors constitutes sufficient cause to grant an extension of time to file a defence under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court applied the principle that a litigant who has demonstrated willingness to be heard should not be condemned unheard due to counsel's negligence, and granted the applicants seven days from the date of ruling to file their defence.

Outcome

Applicants granted extension of time to file written statement of defence

Facts

The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 420 of 2017 against the applicants and served summons on 8 June 2017 requiring a defence within 15 days. Upon receiving the summons, the 2nd and 3rd applicants instructed M/S Illukor & Co. Advocates to file a written statement of defence and paid UGX 400,000 as deposit against total fees of UGX 5,000,000. The lawyers failed to file the defence within the prescribed time. The applicants subsequently engaged new counsel, M/S Odokel Opolot & Co. Advocate, and brought this application seeking an extension of time to file their defence out of time.

Issues

  1. Whether there exists sufficient cause to merit extension of time to file a defence out of time.
  2. Whether there was effective service of summons on the 1st applicant.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Applicants granted an extension of 7 days from the date of this ruling within which to file a defence.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause — Negligence of Former Legal Advisors
Where a litigant has demonstrated willingness to be heard by instructing counsel and making payment for legal services, the negligence of that counsel in failing to file pleadings within the prescribed time constitutes sufficient cause for the court to grant an extension of time under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as counsel's negligence should not be visited upon the client.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Discretionary Power of Court
The court has discretionary power under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Act to enlarge time even though the period originally fixed has expired, and may do so upon such terms as the justice of the case may require pursuant to Order 51 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Right to be Heard — Willingness to Defend
A litigant who has shown interest to be heard should not be locked out or condemned unheard, as this principle serves the ends of justice.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Godfrey Magezi & Anor v Sudhir Rupparaila (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2002)
  • Nakilwoya v Attorney General (Misc. Cause No. 320 of 2013)
  • Benard Mweeteise and Anor v Uganda Telecom Ltd (Misc. Application No. 6 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kiddawalime Bakery Ltd & 2 Ors v Unga Millers (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 975 of 2017) [2018] UGCommC 52 (11 August 2018)
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.