Mayanja and 7 Others v Wantante and 5 Others (Civil Suit No. 497 of 2018)
Observed later treatment
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 High Court held that the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2019, which introduced the requirement to take out summons for direction within 28 days, do not apply retrospectively to suits filed before the Rules came into force on 31 May 2019. The instant suit, filed in October 2018, is governed by the Civil Procedure Rules as they existed at the time of filing. The suit has not abated.
Outcome
Suit to proceed to trial on the merits; pending miscellaneous applications withdrawn
Facts
The plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 497 of 2018 on 25 October 2018 seeking revocation of letters of administration and cancellation of a certificate of title. The plaintiffs filed three miscellaneous applications arising from the suit between November 2018 and December 2019. On 5 October 2021, counsel for the 2nd - 5th defendants raised a preliminary objection that the suit had abated because the plaintiffs failed to take out summons for direction within 28 days of the last reply or rejoinder as required by Order 11A rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2019, which came into force on 31 May 2019. The defendants argued that the last reply was on 30 October 2019 and that the plaintiffs' failure to extract summons for over two years constituted dormancy. The plaintiffs countered that the 2019 amendment does not apply retrospectively to a suit filed in 2018 and that they had actively pursued the matter through applications and formal letters.
Issues
- Whether Civil Suit No. 497 of 2018 abated for failure to take out summons for direction under Order 11A rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2019.
Orders
- The preliminary objection is overruled.
- Each party shall bear their own costs.
- Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2019 and Miscellaneous Application No. 401 of 2019 are withdrawn and discontinued with no order as to costs to the Respondents.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (12)
- Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2019 S.I 13 Order 11A rule 1(2)
- Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2019 Order 11A rule 1(3)
- Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2019 Order 11A rule 1(6)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order VIII rule 18(5)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order XVII rule 6
- Civil Procedure Rules Order XXV rule 1
- Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 126(2)(e)
- Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 28(1)
- Interpretation Act Cap 3 s.17(1)(a)
- Interpretation Act Cap 3 s.17(2)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.41(1)
- Judicature Act Cap 13 s.41(1)
Cases cited (5)
- Namwanje Patricia & Others v. Tembo Steels (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 53 of 2020)
- Geofrey Wasswa v. Amy for Africa Ltd & 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 127 of 2020)
- Utex Industries Ltd v. Attorney General (SCCA No. 52 of 1995)
- Wambewo v. Mazelele (HCT-04-CV-MA128 of 2013) [2015] UGHCCD
- Phillis v. Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 4
Cases citing this judgment (3)
How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.