Najjuma Pheobe v Kinene Ivan [2026] UGHCFD 67

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.

Holding

The court held that a written statement of defence filed after the fifteen days allowed by Order 8 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, without leave of court, is irregular and filed out of time, and that a litigant, not his advocate, bears responsibility for ensuring timely filing. Nevertheless, exercising its discretion under sections 96 and 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and applying Articles 28 and 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, the court declined to strike out the defence. Because the suit raised allegations of fraud and claims affecting land titles and third parties in possession, the substance of the dispute had to be decided on its merits. The defence was validated and the suit ordered to proceed inter partes.

Outcome

Written statement of defence validated; Civil Suit No. 253 of 2025 to proceed inter partes

Facts

The applicant sued the respondent, administrator of the estate of the late Kiwanuka Seviri Yonani, in Civil Suit No. 253 of 2025, seeking remedies including relief for fraud, surrender of land titles and land registration affecting the estate. The respondent was served with summons but filed his written statement of defence on 8 August 2025, outside the fifteen days prescribed by Order 8 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and without leave of court. The applicant applied to strike out the defence and to have the suit heard ex parte. The respondent explained that he had given both his affidavit in reply in a related temporary injunction application (Miscellaneous Application No. 4352 of 2025) and his defence to his then advocate, and only learned later that the advocate had delayed filing the defence; he blamed his former advocates' negligence and asked that their mistake not be visited on him. The court confirmed from the record that the respondent had participated in the earlier injunction application through that advocate. The applicant's own affidavit disclosed that the Registrar had endorsed the late written statement of defence.

Issues

1. Whether the written statement of defence filed by the respondent outside the fifteen days prescribed by Order 8 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and without leave of court, should be struck out.
2. Whether the court should exercise its discretion under sections 96 and 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to validate or extend time for the late written statement of defence.
3. Whether the civil suit should be set down for hearing ex parte.

Orders

• The Written Statement of Defence is validated.
• HCCS No. 253 of 2025 will be heard inter party.
• Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.98
• Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.96
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 8 rule 1(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 8 rule 19
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 9 rules 5, 10 and 11(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 rules 1, 2 and 3
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 5 rule 1(1)(a)
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 art.28
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 art.126(2)(e)

Cases cited (5)

• Yahaya Lugega Bukenya v Letshego Uganda Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 157 of 2020)
• Horizon Coaches Ltd v Edward Rurangaranga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2009)
• Sentamu Moses and Another v Kenanansi Jackline (Miscellaneous Application No. 681 of 2020)
• National Enterprise Corporation v Mukisa Foods (Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1997)
• Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)

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