Wakilii

Mark Graves v Balton (U) Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 158 of 2008)

High Court · [2008] UGCOMMC 46 · 2008 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by chamber summons to dispute jurisdiction arising from underlying commercial suit
Decision
Application dismissed on the grounds that it was filed out of time and the grounds advanced did not dispute the jurisdiction of the court

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

Held that a defendant may file an application under Order 9 rule 3 CPR without first filing a defence, provided notice of intention to defend is given and the application is filed within the time limited for service of a defence. Time limits set by statutes are matters of substantive law and must be strictly complied with. An application filed after the statutory time limit and grounded on matters not affecting the court's jurisdiction falls outside the scope of Order 9 rule 3. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed on the grounds that it was filed out of time and the grounds advanced did not dispute the jurisdiction of the court

Facts

The Applicant filed an application by chamber summons under Order 9 rule 3 CPR and Section 33 of the Judicature Act. The Respondent raised two preliminary objections: first, that the Applicant had not filed a defence and therefore lacked locus to bring the application; second, that the application was filed after the time limit for service of a defence. Summons had been served on the Applicant by substituted service through advertisement in the New Vision Newspaper on 14 March 2008, requiring a defence within 15 days. The application was filed on 1 April 2008. The grounds advanced by the Applicant related to alleged non-disclosure of critical facts by the Respondent and absence of contractual relationship, rather than disputing the court's jurisdiction.

Issues

  1. Whether an application under Order 9 rule 3 Civil Procedure Rules can be filed without first filing a written statement of defence.
  2. Whether the application was filed within the time limited for service of a defence.
  3. Whether the grounds advanced by the applicant fell within the scope of Order 9 rule 3 as grounds disputing the jurisdiction of the court.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Applications Disputing Jurisdiction — Filing of Defence
A defendant who wishes to dispute the jurisdiction of the court under Order 9 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules is not required to file a written statement of defence prior to filing the application, provided the defendant gives notice of intention to defend the proceedings and files the application within the time limited for service of a defence.
Civil Procedure — Time Limits — Substantive Law
Time limits set by statutes are matters of substantive law and not mere technicalities and must be strictly complied with.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Substituted Service
Where service is effected by substituted service under an order of court, such service is as effectual as if it had been made on the defendant personally, and time begins to run from the date of publication as ordered.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Scope of Order 9 Rule 3
An application under Order 9 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules must be brought by a defendant who disputes the jurisdiction of the court by reason of irregularities in the summons, service of summons, or any other ground affecting jurisdiction. Grounds relating to non-disclosure of facts or absence of a cause of action do not dispute the court's jurisdiction and fall outside the scope of Order 9 rule 3.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (1)

  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd (1997-2001) UCL 149

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mark Graves v Balton (U) Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 158 of 2008) [2008] UGCommC 46 (21 August 2008)
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.