Wakilii

Multiple Industries Limited v Zhonghao Overseas Construction Engineering Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 1297 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 285 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out Written Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for being filed out of time without leave of court
Decision
Application to strike out defence dismissed; belated Written Statement of Defence and Counterclaim validated

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 dismissed the application to strike out the Written Statement of Defence filed five days late. Although the defence was filed beyond the prescribed 15-day period, the court held that substantive justice under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution requires prioritising the resolution of disputes on their merits over rigid adherence to procedural timelines. The court validated the belated defence, finding that striking it out would deny the defendant a fair hearing and occasion manifest injustice, whereas any prejudice to the plaintiff from procedural delay could be addressed through costs orders.

Outcome

Application to strike out defence dismissed; belated Written Statement of Defence and Counterclaim validated

Facts

Multiple Industries Limited filed Civil Suit No. 536 of 2025 against Zhonghao Overseas Construction Engineering Ltd for recovery of UGX 436,708,835 for unpaid PVC pipe supplies. On 13 May 2025, summons to file a defence were served on a person named Joseph at the respondent's head office and on the respondent's counsel. The respondent filed its Written Statement of Defence and Counterclaim on 3 June 2025, five days beyond the statutory 15-day period which expired on 28 May 2025. The applicant sought to strike out the defence for being filed out of time without leave. The respondent opposed, arguing that service was ineffective because Joseph was a receptionist without authority to receive service, and counsel had no instructions to represent the respondent in litigation at the time of service. The respondent filed a separate application (Misc. Application No. 1514 of 2025) to validate the belated pleading.

Issues

  1. Whether the Written Statement of Defence and the Counterclaim in High Court Civil Suit No. 536 of 2025 should be struck out for having been filed out of time without leave of court.

Orders

  • Miscellaneous Application No. 1297 of 2025 is dismissed.
  • Miscellaneous Application No. 1514 of 2025 for the validation of the Written Statement of Defence and Counter Claim is allowed.
  • There are no orders as to costs in both applications.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Service on Corporations — Requirements for Effective Service
Service of summons on a corporation must be effected on the secretary, director, or other principal officer of the corporation. A principal officer is a person authorised to exercise substantial executive or managerial powers, such as signing contracts and making major business and administrative decisions, as distinguished from regular employees. Service on a person whose official capacity or authority to accept service is not established does not constitute effective service.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Service on Advocates — Scope of Authority
Service of process on an advocate is effective only where the advocate is duly appointed to act on behalf of the party. The authority of an advocate is limited by the extent of instructions provided by the client, and service on an advocate whose mandate is expressly limited to other matters does not constitute effective service for litigation purposes.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Time for Filing Defence — Substantive Justice over Technicalities
Although a defendant is required to file a Written Statement of Defence within 15 days of service of summons, the court may decline to strike out a defence filed out of time where doing so would deny the defendant the opportunity to present a bona fide defence and would occasion manifest injustice. Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution directs that substantive justice shall be administered without undue regard to technicalities, and courts should prioritise the resolution of disputes on their merits over rigid adherence to procedural formalities.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (8)

  • Hadondi Daniel v Yolam Egondi (Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2003)
  • Geoffrey Gatete and Another v William Kyobe (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
  • Pirbhai Lalji v Hassanali (1962) EA 306
  • Spencon Services Limited v Onencan Habib (Civil Appeal No. 0092 of 2016)
  • Kampala City Council v Apollo Hotel Ltd [1985] HCB 77
  • Baguma Caleb v Uganda National Roads Authority (High Court Civil Appeal No. 0003 of 2013)
  • Colonel Dr Kiiza Besigye v Yoweri Kaguta Museveni & Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Anor (1982) HCB 11

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Multiple Industries Limited v Zhonghao Overseas Construction Engineering Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 1297 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 285 (26 August 2025)
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.