Wakilii

Lubega Bukenya v Letshego Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 157 of 2020)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 11 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application to strike out defence and counterclaim filed out of time in civil proceedings
Decision
Respondents' defence and counterclaim struck out; matter to proceed without respondents' pleadings on record

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

Court held that a defence filed nine days late without leave cannot be validated where the respondent failed to show sufficient cause for the delay and was not a diligent litigant. The defence and counterclaim were struck out. The mistake of counsel principle does not apply where the litigant showed laxity and was unaware of the procedural default until challenged.

Outcome

Respondents' defence and counterclaim struck out; matter to proceed without respondents' pleadings on record

Facts

The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 75 of 2019 against the respondents. Summons to file defence were served on 13 November 2019. The respondents filed their Written Statement of Defence on 10 December 2019, nine days beyond the 15-day period prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, without seeking leave to file out of time. Mediation scheduled for 24 August 2020 did not proceed because the respondents had not properly filed their defence. The applicant brought this application to strike out the defence for being filed out of time. The respondents argued that the court should exercise discretion under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to enlarge time and validate the defence, relying on the mistake of counsel principle. The court found that the respondent was not a diligent litigant and failed to show sufficient cause for the delay.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents' Written Statement of Defence and counterclaim should be struck out for being filed outside the prescribed time limit without leave of court.
  2. Whether the court should exercise its discretion under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to enlarge time and validate the defence filed out of time.
  3. Whether the respondents can rely on the principle of mistake of counsel to excuse the late filing.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Respondents' Written Statement of Defence and counter-claim in Civil Suit No. 075 of 2019 struck out/off the record.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Defence — Time for Filing — Order 8 Rule 1(2) — Requirement to File Within 15 Days
Under Order 8 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, a defendant must file a Written Statement of Defence within 15 days following service of summons. A defence filed outside this period without leave of court is filed out of time.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause — Requirement to Show Inability to Take Step Within Prescribed Time
Time can only be extended if sufficient cause is shown. The sufficient cause must relate to the inability or failure to take the necessary step within the prescribed time. If the applicant is found guilty of dilatory conduct, time will not be extended.
Civil Procedure — Mistake of Counsel — Litigant's Diligence — Non-Applicability Where Litigant Shows Laxity
The principle that a litigant should not suffer for counsel's mistake does not apply where the litigant is not diligent and was unaware that a procedural step was taken out of time until challenged. A litigant who demonstrates laxity cannot rely on mistake of counsel.
Civil Procedure — Discretion of Court — Section 98 Civil Procedure Act — Exercise in Consideration of Entire Case
While the court has discretion under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to administer justice, such discretion must be exercised in consideration of the case in its entirety and will not be exercised to condone conduct that deliberately overrides the rules of procedure.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (2)

  • Hadondi Daniel v Yolam Egondi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2003)
  • Sabiiti Kachope and 3 Others v Margaret Kamuje (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 31 of 1997)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lubega Bukenya v Letshego Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 157 of 2020) [2022] UGHCCD 11 (17 January 2022)
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.