Wakilii

Namudhumba Daisy Samali v Kyebuzibwa Henry Lubowa (Miscellaneous Application 250 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1527 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application to strike out Written Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for lack of Registrar's signature and seal, arising from Civil Suit No. 061 of 2023
Decision
Written Statement of Defence and Counterclaim struck off; respondent granted leave to file fresh defence out of time within 15 days

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

A Written Statement of Defence and Counterclaim that have not been signed and sealed by the Registrar or other authorised judicial officer are nullities and cannot stand. Order 9 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules mandates that the Registrar sign and seal a defence before service; this requirement is not a mere technicality but goes to the root of proper filing. The unsigned and unsealed pleadings were struck off the record, with leave granted to the respondent to file a fresh defence out of time within 15 days.

Outcome

Written Statement of Defence and Counterclaim struck off; respondent granted leave to file fresh defence out of time within 15 days

Facts

The applicant, suing through her mother and next friend, filed Civil Suit No. 061 of 2023 seeking declaratory orders regarding ownership of land in Jinja District. The respondent filed a Written Statement of Defence and Counterclaim on 15 December 2023. The applicant brought this interlocutory application seeking to strike out the defence and counterclaim on the ground that they had been served without the signature and seal of the Registrar. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the defence was properly on record, that the Deputy Registrar had issued an order for service on 29 May 2024, and that the absence of signature and seal was a mere technicality curable under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution. The court examined the filed defence and found it bore only a received stamp and a stamp relating to court fees, but no Registrar's signature or seal.

Issues

  1. Whether a Written Statement of Defence served without the Registrar's signature and seal is valid.

Orders

  • Application succeeds.
  • The Written Statement of Defence filed on 15 December 2023 is struck off the record for lack of Registrar's signature and seal.
  • The Counterclaim is struck off the record for lack of Registrar's signature and seal.
  • The respondent/defendant is directed to apply to file a fresh Written Statement of Defence out of time within 15 days from the reading of this Ruling.
  • Costs shall abide in the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Written Statement of Defence — Filing Requirements — Signature and Seal by Registrar
Under Order 9 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the filing of a Written Statement of Defence is a two-step process: first, the defendant delivers the defence to the proper officer of court; second, that officer signs and affixes the official seal before the defence is served on the opposite party. Filing is not complete until both steps are fulfilled.
Civil Procedure — Defective Pleadings — Unsigned and Unsealed Defence — Effect
A Written Statement of Defence that has not been signed and sealed by the Registrar or other authorised judicial officer is a nullity and cannot be relied upon. The signature and seal authenticate the document and confirm that it has been properly filed; their absence is a defect that goes to the root of the pleading and cannot be cured by Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.
Civil Procedure — Signature and Seal — Role of Registrar — Authentication of Court Documents
The signature and seal of the Registrar or other duly authorised judicial officer serve as authentication of court documents and reinforce the authority of the court. Court documents issued without proper signature or seal are invalid and may be struck out for technical non-compliance.
Civil Procedure — Electronic Filing — ECCMIS — Signature Requirements
Where pleadings are filed electronically through the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS), the signature requirements under the Civil Procedure Rules still apply. An electronic signature by the Registrar or other authorised judicial officer is mandatory for authentication; lack of it may be fatal to the document.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out Pleadings — Leave to File Fresh Defence — Avoiding Multiplicity of Proceedings
Where a Written Statement of Defence is struck out for procedural defects not attributable to the defendant personally but to counsel or the registry, the court may grant leave to file a fresh defence out of time to avoid locking the defendant out of the court system and to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (7)

  • Simon Tendo Kabenge v Barclays Bank Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2015)
  • Kaur and others v City Auction Mart Ltd [1967] 1 EA 108
  • Nanjubu v Kintu and another (2011)
  • Ejalu v Uganda Railways Corporation [1994] 1 KALR 51
  • Regina Kavenya Mutuku & 3 others v United Insurance Co. Ltd [2002] 1 KLR 250
  • Vipin, Agnlal Shah & another vs. Investment & Mortgages Bank Ltd (Kenya, 2001)
  • Jjunju Frank & Anor v Zalwango Immy & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 2639 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Namudhumba Daisy Samali v Kyebuzibwa Henry Lubowa (Miscellaneous Application 250 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 1527 (1 September 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.