Wakilii

Mayanja and 7 Others v Wantante and 5 Others (Land Civil Suit No. 497 of 2018)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 29 · 2023 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objection raised by defendants that the suit had abated for failure to take out summons for direction under amended Civil Procedure Rules
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; main suit to proceed under pre-amendment rules

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 High Court held that the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019, which require summons for direction within 28 days failing which a suit abates, do not apply retrospectively to suits filed before their commencement on 31 May 2019. Where a statute is amended while a matter is pending, the rights of parties must be decided under the statutory provisions in force at the time of institution, unless the legislature clearly intends retrospective application. The suit filed in October 2018 was governed by the pre-amendment rules and had not abated. Preliminary objection overruled.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; main suit to proceed under pre-amendment rules

Facts

The plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 497 of 2018 on 25 October 2018 seeking revocation of letters of administration and cancellation of a freehold certificate of title. They filed three miscellaneous applications arising from the suit between November 2018 and December 2019. The last reply was filed on 30 October 2019 when Miscellaneous Application No. 409 of 2018 was concluded. The 2nd to 5th defendants raised a preliminary objection on 5 October 2021 arguing that the suit had abated under Order 11A rule 1(2) and (6) of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, S.I 13 of 2019, which came into force on 31 May 2019, for the plaintiffs' failure to take out summons for direction within 28 days of the last reply. The plaintiffs opposed, arguing that the amendment rules did not apply retrospectively to suits filed before their commencement and that they had not been dormant, having written letters to court in March and June 2022 seeking to fix the matter for hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether Civil Suit No. 497 of 2018 abated under Order 11A rule 1(2) and (6) of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, S.I 13 of 2019 for failure to take out summons for direction within 28 days of the last reply or rejoinder.
  2. Whether the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, S.I 13 of 2019 apply retrospectively to suits filed before their commencement on 31 May 2019.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is overruled.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.
  • Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2019 is withdrawn and discontinued with no order as to costs.
  • Miscellaneous Application No. 401 of 2019 is withdrawn and discontinued with no order as to costs to the respondents who were not served.

Rules and key headnotes

Retrospective Application of Laws — General Principle Against Retrospectivity
Laws do not have retrospective application and enforcement unless expressly stated or necessarily implied. Retrospective laws are prima facie of questionable policy and contrary to the general principle that legislation ought to deal with future acts and ought not to change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing law.
Amendment of Rules While Matter Pending — Applicable Law
Where a statute is amended while a matter is pending, the rights of the parties to the action, in the absence of a contrary intention, must be decided in accordance with the statutory provisions in force at the time of the institution of the action. Where the legislature intends that a provision should have retrospective effect it has to state so in clear and unequivocal terms.
Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019 — Non-Retrospective Application
The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, S.I 13 of 2019, which came into force on 31 May 2019, do not apply retrospectively to suits instituted prior to their commencement. There is nothing express or implied in Order 11A of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019 showing an intention to apply the law retrospectively.
Abatement of Suit — Order 11A Rule 1(2) and (6) — Inapplicability to Pre-2019 Suits
Order 11A rule 1(2) and (6) of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019, requiring plaintiffs to take out summons for direction within 28 days of the last reply or rejoinder failing which the suit shall abate, does not apply to suits filed before 31 May 2019 when the amendment came into force.

Legislation cited (12)

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-MA-128 of 2013)
  • Phillis v. Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 4

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mayanja_and_7_Others_v_Wantante_and_5_Others_(Land_Civil_Suit_No._497_of_2018)_[2023]_UGHCLD_29_(2_February_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.