Latigo v Oyaro (Miscellaneous Application 9 of 2024)

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.

Holding

The High Court dismissed the applicant's preliminary objection seeking to strike out the respondent's affidavit in reply filed on the day of hearing. The Court held that Order 12 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules cited by the applicant did not apply to this originating application for leave to appeal out of time. There is no specific timeline for filing affidavits in reply to such applications, though filing should allow fair opportunity for rejoinder. The Court found no prejudice warranting exclusion of the affidavit and allowed the applicant a fortnight to file a rejoinder if desired.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; main application to be heard on a subsequent date

Facts

The applicant filed an application seeking leave to file an appeal out of time against a Chief Magistrate's Court decision delivered on 9 November 2023, which had confirmed an LC 3 Court decision. The underlying dispute concerned competing claims over customary land measuring ten acres in Pader District. The application was filed on 17 January 2024, approximately two months after the decision. Service on the respondent was allegedly effected on 28 January 2024. The respondent, initially unrepresented, obtained counsel on 29 May 2024 and filed an affidavit in reply on 13 June 2024, the day of hearing. The applicant raised a preliminary objection that the affidavit in reply was filed beyond the fifteen-day period stipulated in Order 12 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and should be struck out.

Issues

1. Whether the Respondent's Affidavit in Reply was filed belatedly and ought to be struck out

Orders

• The preliminary objection on the point of Law raised by the Applicant is without merit and is hereby dismissed.
• The Applicant may file a Rejoinder in respect of matters raised in the Affidavit in Reply which must be filed within a fortnight of the date of delivery of this decision.
• The Deputy Registrar High Court Kitgum Circuit shall fix the Main Application for the next convenient date.
• No Order is made as to Costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap. 71 s.98
• Civil Procedure Act Cap. 71 s.79
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 r.2
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 r.3
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 12 r.2
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 12 r.3
• Law Revision Act Cap. 3

Cases cited (2)

• Muwanga v Sun Huawen (Miscellaneous Application No. 114 of 2018)
• Dr. Lam Lagoro James v Muni University (Miscellaneous Cause No. 7 of 2016)

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