Nabanjala v Nabukalu (Miscellaneous Application No. 250 of 2015)

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.

Holding

Held that where court registry lost the file and fixed the hearing date months after sealing the application, the failure to serve within 21 days prescribed by Order 5 rule 1(2) CPR was not the applicant's fault. The omissions of court should not be visited upon the litigant. Preliminary objection overruled.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed. Application to proceed to hearing on merits.

Facts

The applicant filed a miscellaneous application on 11 August 2015, which was sealed by the Registrar on 17 August 2015. Service was effected on the respondent's counsel on 11 February 2016, approximately six months after sealing. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that service was outside the 21-day period prescribed by Order 5 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and that the applicant had not sought leave to extend time for service. The applicant submitted that the delay was caused by the court registry misplacing the file. Correspondence annexed to her affidavit showed that between August and November 2015, the mother file could not be located. The hearing date was fixed as 23 February 2016, long after the application was sealed.

Issues

1. Whether the application was incompetent for being served outside the 21-day time limit prescribed under Order 5 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules without leave to serve out of time.
2. Whether the applicant's failure to serve within the prescribed time should be excused where the delay was caused by court registry losing the file.

Orders

• Preliminary point of law overruled.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 1(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 1(3)(a)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 1(5)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 7
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 8
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 16
• Civil Procedure Act
• Limitation Act

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Nyaika v Administrator General and 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application 51 of 2021)

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