Wakilii

Kintu and Another v TATA Uganda Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application 811 of 2018)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 32 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal against interlocutory ruling of the High Court
Decision
Application for leave to appeal dismissed

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 dismissed an application for leave to appeal against a trial judge's refusal to strike out a defence filed two days late. Held that the trial court properly exercised its discretion under CPR Order 51 rule 6 to enlarge time, which may be done even without a formal application where justice requires. No prima facie case established that discretion was exercised improperly. The court's inherent power, constitutional mandate for substantive justice, and statutory authority to extend time supported the decision. Leave to appeal refused.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Facts

The Applicants filed suit against the Respondents in Civil Suit No. 335 of 2017. The Respondents were served with summons to file defence on 11 September 2017. Under CPR Order 8 rule 1(2), the defence was due within fifteen days, expiring on 26 September 2017. The Respondents filed their Written Statement of Defence on 28 September 2017, two days late. The Applicants brought an application to strike out the defence. The trial judge refused to strike it out and validated the defence. The Applicants then sought leave to appeal against that refusal, arguing the defence was invalid and should have been struck out. The Respondents did not appear or file any response to the leave application.

Issues

  1. Whether the application discloses any grounds for grant of leave to appeal

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the Respondents

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Test for Grant
Leave to appeal from an order in civil proceedings will normally be granted where prima facie it appears that there are grounds of appeal which merit serious judicial consideration, but where the order sought to be appealed from was made in the exercise of judicial discretion, a rather stronger case must be made out by the applicant.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Court's Discretion
Under CPR Order 51 rule 6, the court has power to enlarge time fixed by the rules upon such terms as justice requires, and may do so on its own motion or in its discretion during proceedings, even where no formal application for extension has been made and even after the time has expired.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Informal Application
CPR Order 51 rule 6 does not prescribe that extension of time cannot be granted on the court's own motion or that any application for extension must be by way of formal application. The court may be moved during proceedings challenging late filing and may enlarge time as justice requires.
Civil Procedure — Substantive Justice — Application over Technicalities
In exercising discretion to enlarge time for filing pleadings, the court is guided by its inherent power under Civil Procedure Act s.98, its remedial jurisdiction under Judicature Act s.33, and the constitutional mandate under Article 126(2)(e) to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (7)

  • Spear Motors Ltd v Attorney General and 2 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 692 of 2007)
  • Lane v Esdaile [1891] AC 210
  • Ex parte Stevenson [1892] 1 QB 609
  • Incafex (U) Ltd v Kabatereine [1999] KALR 645
  • Sango Bay Estate Ltd and Others v Dresdner Bank AG [1971] EALR 17
  • Degeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 16 of 1996)
  • Musa Sbeity and Another v Akello Joan (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 249 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kintu and Another v TATA Uganda Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application 811 of 2018) [2024] UGHCCD 32 (22 February 2024)
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.