Wakilii

Mayaye Saad v Lutaaya Tukirambudde and Another [2026] UGHCLD 149

High Court · 2026 Suit Abated AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on the status of a first instance land suit where the plaintiff failed to take out summons for directions after filing of the written statement of defence
Decision
Suit abated for failure to take out summons for directions within the prescribed 28 days; no order as to 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 held that where a suit is instituted by plaint, the plaintiff must take out summons for directions within 28 days from the date of the last reply or rejoinder under Order 11A, Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and that this requirement is mandatory. The plaintiff having allowed the 28 days after the 1st Defendant's written statement of defence to elapse without taking out summons for directions, the suit abated by operation of Order 11A, Rule 1(6). The court also noted the absence of any proof that summons to file a defence were served on the 2nd Defendant within the 21 days prescribed by Order 5, Rule 1(2), or of any application to extend that time.

Outcome

Suit abated for failure to take out summons for directions within the prescribed 28 days; no order as to costs

Facts

The plaintiff filed a plaint on ECCMIS on 13 October 2025. Summons to file a defence were issued by the Assistant Registrar on 24 October 2025. The 1st Defendant filed a written statement of defence on 12 December 2025. There was no evidence on the record that summons to file a defence had been served on the 2nd Defendant within the 21 days prescribed by the rules, nor of any application to extend the time for service. Following the filing of the 1st Defendant's written statement of defence, the plaintiff did not take out summons for directions within the 28 days prescribed by the Civil Procedure Rules, and that period had elapsed by the time of the ruling.

Issues

  1. Whether the 2nd Defendant was served with summons to file a defence within the time prescribed by Order 5, Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the suit abated for failure by the plaintiff to take out summons for directions within 28 days from the filing of the written statement of defence under Order 11A, Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • The suit is abated under Order 11A, Rule 1(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules for failure by the plaintiff to take out summons for directions within 28 days from the date of filing of the written statement of defence as required under Order 11A, Rule 1(2).
  • There is no order for costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summons for Directions — Abatement of Suit under Order 11A Rule 1(6)
Where a suit is instituted by plaint, the plaintiff must take out summons for directions within 28 days from the date of the last reply or rejoinder; the requirement is mandatory and non-compliance causes the suit to abate under Order 11A, Rule 1(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Service of Summons — Time for Service and Extension under Order 5 Rule 1(2)
Summons to file a defence must be served within 21 days of issue, and any extension must be sought by application made within fifteen days after expiry of that period upon showing sufficient reason; absent proof of service or such an application, the court cannot proceed against the unserved defendant.

Legislation cited (3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mayaye Saad v Lutaaya Tukirambudde and Another [2026] UGHCLD 149 (22 April 2026)
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.