Wakilii

Lukyamuzi v Kajimba & Another (Miscellaneous Application 250 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 372 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out 1st Respondent's affidavit in reply for late filing and failure to specifically respond to allegations
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the 1st Respondent

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 dismissed an application to strike out a respondent's affidavit in reply filed out of time. The court held that where a new application is served on former advocates rather than the party personally, and the late filing results from counsel's mistake, such error should not be visited upon the litigant. The application on points of law was unnecessary as the issues could have been raised in the main application.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the 1st Respondent

Facts

The 1st Respondent successfully appealed in Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2019. The Applicant then filed Miscellaneous Application No. 155 of 2022 seeking review of the appeal orders. The Applicant served this new application on the 1st Respondent's former advocates, who acknowledged receipt but filed an affidavit in reply outside the 15-day period prescribed by the Civil Procedure Rules. The Applicant then brought the instant application seeking to strike out the late affidavit in reply and have the review application determined ex parte. The Applicant argued that the affidavit in reply was defective for failing to specifically respond to allegations and was filed out of time. The 1st Respondent contended that the late filing was the fault of his former advocates and should not prejudice him.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st Respondent's affidavit in reply to Miscellaneous Application No. 155 of 2022 was defective for failing to specifically respond to allegations.
  2. Whether the 1st Respondent's affidavit in reply to Miscellaneous Application No. 155 of 2022 offended Order 12 rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules by being filed out of time.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 1st Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — New Proceedings — Service on Former Advocates
Where a new application is filed, it should first be served on the party personally rather than on advocates who represented that party in earlier proceedings, so that the party can confirm whether those advocates still have instructions to represent them in subsequent matters.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Late Filing — Mistakes of Counsel
A mistake, negligence, oversight or error on the part of counsel should not be visited upon the litigant, and such mistakes constitute just cause entitling the trial judge to exercise discretion so that the matter is considered on its merits.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (2)

  • Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lukyamuzi v Kajimba & Another (Miscellaneous Application 250 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 372 (6 June 2023)
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.