Wakilii

Mabumba v Semakula (Civil Suit No. 589 of 1991)

High Court · [1993] UGHC 20 · 1993 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Verbal application by defendant for adjournment to file written statement of defence out of time
Decision
Defendant granted leave to file defence out of time subject to payment of costs

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 exercised its discretion to grant an adjournment allowing the defendant to file his written statement of defence out of time. The court held that where a defendant has entered appearance but failed to file defence in time, and has a good defence on the merits with sound reasons for delay, the court should normally allow the defence to be filed but compensate the plaintiff in costs. Procedural rules serve justice rather than obstruct it.

Outcome

Defendant granted leave to file defence out of time subject to payment of costs

Facts

The plaintiff filed a plaint on 22 August 1991. The defendant entered appearance on 24 September 1991 but failed to file a written statement of defence within the prescribed time. The plaintiff set the case down for hearing twice: first on 9 June 1992 (which did not proceed) and then on 15 January 1993, with proper hearing notices served on the defendant's counsel. On the hearing date of 15 January 1993, counsel for the defendant appeared and made a verbal application for adjournment to file the written statement of defence out of time. Counsel explained that the defendant had gone into hiding due to problems within his company, making contact impossible, but had now returned and provided the necessary information for formulation of the defence. Counsel showed the court a typed written statement of defence ready for filing.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant should be granted an adjournment to file his written statement of defence out of time.

Orders

  • Application for adjournment allowed.
  • Defendant permitted to file written statement of defence out of time.
  • Defendant to pay costs of the adjournment in any event.
  • Defendant to file written statement of defence within 15 days from 18 January 1993.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Filing Defence Out of Time — Exercise of Discretion
Where a defendant has entered appearance but failed to file a written statement of defence within the prescribed time, the court has discretion to allow the defence to be filed out of time if the defendant has a good defence on the merits and provides sound reasons for the delay, unless the defendant is simply trying to delay the action, but the defendant should be punished severely in costs.
Civil Procedure — Procedural Rules — Purpose and Application
Procedural rules are handmaids of justice, not masters of it, and the ends of justice would not be met by shutting out a defendant who has a good defence to the claim and sound reasons for delay in filing the defence.
Civil Procedure — Hearing Notice — Service on Defendant Who Failed to File Defence
Order 9 rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires hearing notice to be served on a defendant who has entered appearance even though he has failed to file a defence within the time allowed.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.10

Cases cited (5)

  • Barclays Bank Ltd v Kangave and Kiini (High Court Civil Suit No. 182 of 1967)
  • Otanga v Nabunjo (High Court Civil Suit No. 613 of 1963)
  • Kafeero v Standard Bank Ltd (1970) EA 465
  • Attorney General v Sengendo (1992) EA 556
  • Jamnanad V. Sodha v G. Hemraj (1952) 7 ULR 7

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mabumba v Semakula (Civil Suit No. 589 of 1991) [1993] UGHC 20 (18 January 1993)
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.