Wakilii

Naiga Margret and Another v Projos Nature Safaris (U) Limited and Another (Civil Suit No. 1131 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 127 · 2025 Application Granted — Suit Abated AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objection to abatement raised by 2nd defendant in civil suit transferred from Land Division to Commercial Court
Decision
Suit abated for failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements under Order 11A of the Civil Procedure 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

Held that the suit abated under Order 11A rule 1(2) and rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules for failure to take out summons for directions within 28 days from the last reply to pleadings filed on 12 October 2022. The three-year delay was inordinate and the plaintiffs failed to diligently follow up on issuance of fresh summons for substituted service. The 2nd defendant's written statement of defence, filed five days out of time, ought also to have been struck out.

Outcome

Suit abated for failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements under Order 11A of the Civil Procedure Rules

Facts

The plaintiffs filed suit on 6 June 2022 at the Land Division seeking cancellation of a mortgage deed and related relief concerning land comprised in Block 193 plot 327. The suit was transferred to the Commercial Court and renumbered Civil Suit No. 1131 of 2022. The 3rd defendant filed a written statement of defence on 12 October 2022 and the 2nd defendant filed on 25 October 2022. The plaintiffs applied for substituted service on the 1st defendant on 19 June 2023, which was granted, but fresh summons were never issued. On 17 April 2025, counsel for the 2nd defendant raised a preliminary objection that the suit had abated under Order 11A for failure to take out summons for directions within 28 days from the last reply to pleadings.

Issues

  1. Whether the instant suit abated in line with Order 11A Rules 1(2) and (6) of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1, as amended.

Orders

  • The instant suit abated.
  • The written statement of defence filed by the 2nd defendant out of time ought to have been struck out.
  • Each party will bear its costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Abatement of Suits — Summons for Directions — Mandatory Requirement
Under Order 11A rule 1(2) and rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1, as amended, a plaintiff must take out summons for directions within 28 days from the date of the last reply or rejoinder, and failure to do so results in automatic abatement of the suit.
Civil Procedure — Abatement — Delay — Duty to Follow Up
A party has a duty to diligently follow up on the progress of their case and cannot rely solely on instructing counsel. Inordinate delay of three years in following up on issuance of fresh summons, even where court processes are involved, does not excuse failure to comply with mandatory procedural timelines.
Civil Procedure — Written Statement of Defence — Time Limits — Striking Out
A written statement of defence must be filed and served within fifteen days as required under Order 8 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. A defence filed outside this period ought to be struck out, and a party who comes to equity must come with clean hands.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (8)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors (1969) EA 69
  • Kananura Andrew Kansiime v Richard Henry Kaijuka (Civil Reference No. 15 of 2016)
  • Gama Distillers Ltd v Bikanza Ezra (High Court Civil Suit No. 60 of 2021)
  • Kalemesa Samuel Wilson v Kaggwa Christopher Chris and 7 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 776 of 2023)
  • Rashida Abdul Karim Hanali & Mohamed Allibhai v Suleiman Adrisi (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 0009 of 2017)
  • Kampala Associated Advocates v Katamba Ssemakula (Miscellaneous Application No. 873 of 2019)
  • Phelps v Button [2016] EWHC 3185
  • Simon Tendo Kabenge v Barclays Bank Uganda Limited (S.C.C.A. No. 17 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Naiga Margret and Another v Projos Nature Safaris (U) Limited and Another (Civil Suit No. 1131 of 2022) [2025] UGCommC 127 (10 June 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.