Wakilii

Kiwanuka v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda

East African Court of Justice · [2019] EACJ 45 · 2019 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated interlocutory applications arising from Reference No. 6 of 2019 challenging the validity of Uganda Constitutional (Amendment) Act 2017
Decision
Application No. 6 of 2019 allowed; Application No. 4 of 2019 dismissed save for partial relief granted regarding paragraph 17 of Affidavit in Reply

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 declined to strike out the Answer to the Reference filed by the Attorney General, exercising its discretion under Rule 4 to enlarge time for service and deeming the Answer validly served. The Court expunged paragraph 17 of the Affidavit in Reply but otherwise declined to strike it out. The application for judgment on admission was dismissed.

Outcome

Application No. 6 of 2019 allowed; Application No. 4 of 2019 dismissed save for partial relief granted regarding paragraph 17 of Affidavit in Reply

Facts

On 3 May 2019, Male Mabirizi filed Reference No. 6 of 2019 challenging the validity of the Uganda Constitutional (Amendment) Act 2017. The Reference was served on the Attorney General on 6 May 2019. The Attorney General filed an Answer to the Reference on 20 June 2019 and an Affidavit in Reply on 21 June 2019, both served on the Applicant on 24 June 2019. Mabirizi then filed Application No. 4 of 2019 seeking to strike out these pleadings on grounds they were served out of time, were alien to the Court's Rules, lacked supporting documents, and contained improper denials and scandalous material. The Attorney General filed Application No. 6 of 2019 seeking enlargement of time for service, citing the indisposition of Moses Opio, a Records Assistant responsible for service. Both parties conceded the Answer was filed within time but served out of time.

Issues

  1. Whether the Answer to the Reference and Affidavit in Reply should be struck off for being filed and served out of time.
  2. Whether the Answer to the Reference and Affidavit in Reply are alien to the Court's Rules of Procedure.
  3. Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to enlarge time for service of the Answer to the Reference.
  4. Whether judgment on admission should be entered in favour of the Applicant.

Orders

  • Application No. 6 of 2019 allowed.
  • Application No. 4 of 2019 dismissed, save for the expunging of paragraph 17 of the Affidavit in Reply.
  • Answer to the Reference not struck out.
  • Affidavit in Reply not struck out in its entirety, but paragraph 17 thereof expunged.
  • Prayer for judgment on admission in Reference No. 6 of 2019 disallowed.
  • Time for service of Answer to the Reference enlarged under Rule 4.
  • Answer to the Reference previously served deemed validly served.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Applications — Extension of Time — Court's Discretion
The Court has discretion under Rule 4 of its Rules of Procedure to enlarge time for service of pleadings where circumstances beyond a party's control prevented timely service.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out Pleadings — Late Service — Discretion
Late service of a pleading that was filed within time does not automatically warrant striking out where the Court exercises its discretion to validate the service.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 68(3)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 4
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 21(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 30(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 43
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 47

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kiwanuka v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda [2019] EACJ 45 (29 October 2019)
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.