Wakilii

Murangira v Editor RED Pepper (Misc. Application No. 35 of 2013)

High Court · [2013] UGHCCD 125 · 2013 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application seeking to strike out Written Statement of Defence for allegedly late service on plaintiff's counsel
Decision
Application dismissed; main suit to proceed to hearing

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 Order 8 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not prescribe a time limit within which a Written Statement of Defence must be served on the plaintiff. Filing of a defence is complete once it is filed and sealed by court in compliance with Order 8 rule 1 and Order 9 rule 1 CPR. The only instance where time to serve a defence is prescribed is under Order 8 rule 11 CPR for replies to counterclaims. The application to strike out the defence was dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed; main suit to proceed to hearing

Facts

The plaintiff filed suit HCCS No. 296 of 2010 against the defendants. Summons to file defence and the plaint were served on the defendant on 13 December 2010. The defendant filed a Written Statement of Defence on 17 December 2010 which was sealed by court. However, the defence was not served on the plaintiff's counsel until 13 September 2012, nearly two years later. The plaintiff then brought this application seeking to strike out the defence for allegedly late service, arguing that the inordinate delay rendered service a nullity and highly prejudiced the plaintiff. The defendant opposed the application, contending there is no law requiring service of a defence within a specific time and that counsel for the plaintiff should have been vigilant to obtain the filed defence from court. Both counsel had already generated a joint scheduling memorandum for the main suit.

Issues

  1. Whether a Written Statement of Defence filed in court but served on the plaintiff's counsel outside the time allowed for filing a defence should be struck out.
  2. Whether filing of a Written Statement of Defence is only complete when it has been served on the plaintiff within the time allowed to file defence.
  3. Whether Order 8 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules prescribes a time limit within which a Written Statement of Defence must be served on the plaintiff.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs to be in the cause.
  • Hearing to proceed inter partes.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Filing and Service of Pleadings — Written Statement of Defence — Time for Service
Order 8 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not prescribe a time limit within which a Written Statement of Defence must be served on the plaintiff. The rule merely provides for the filing of a defence and any pleadings subsequent thereto, and directs delivery of those pleadings to the address of the opposite party, but does not state the time within which delivery should be made.
Civil Procedure — Filing and Service of Pleadings — When Filing is Complete
Filing of a Written Statement of Defence is complete the moment Order 8 rule 1 and Order 9 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules are complied with. Once a defence is sealed by court, the seal certifies that the defence was filed on the day indicated. It is not true that filing a defence is complete only when it has been served on the plaintiff within the time allowed to file defence.
Civil Procedure — Filing and Service of Pleadings — Counterclaims and Replies — Time Limits
Order 8 rule 19 CPR deals specifically with the filing of a defence which contains a counterclaim, in which case filing of the defence and counterclaim must be done within the time allowed to file the defence. The only instance where time to serve a defence in form of a reply is prescribed is under Order 8 rule 11 CPR, which requires a person named in a defence as a party to a counterclaim to file and serve a reply within 15 days after service of the counterclaim.
Civil Procedure — Practice and Procedure — Vigilance of Counsel
Modern legal practice demands that litigants and their advocates must be vigilant in following up their cases for speedy delivery of justice. Resorting to rules of procedure at the expense of delivery of substantive justice must be discouraged in order to serve the expectations of the people.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.8 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.8 r.8
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.8 r.11
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.8 r.19
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.2
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3

Cases cited (5)

  • Abdu Salongo v Kasese Town Council [1991] HCB 163
  • Mwesigwa Geofrey Phillip v Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda (Misc. Application No. 200 of 2011)
  • Nile Breweries Ltd v Bruno Ozunga T/A Nebbi Boss Stores (HCCS No. 580 of 2006)
  • Mark Graves v Balton (Misc. Application No. 158 of 2008)
  • Simon Tendo Kabenge v Barclays Bank (U) Ltd & Phillip Dandee (Misc. Application No. 263 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Murangira v Editor RED Pepper (Misc. Application No. 35 of 2013) [2013] UGHCCD 125 (23 September 2013)
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.