Wakilii

Namulondo Irene v One To One Logistics Kenya Ltd and Another [2026] UGHC 831

High Court · 2026 Preliminary Objection Overruled AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on a preliminary objection raised at scheduling in a first instance civil suit, contending that the suit had abated for late extraction of summons for directions
Decision
Preliminary objection overruled; suit not abated and set down for scheduling on 20 January 2027

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 abatement under Order 11A Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules is discretionary rather than automatic, the phrase "shall abate" being deliberately different from "shall automatically abate" in Order 17 Rule 5(1). A court will abate a suit only where satisfied that this is necessary to save the time and expense of a trial that cannot proceed with due dispatch. Although the plaintiff extracted summons for directions about two months and 26 days late, the suit had progressed, no prejudice was shown, and the defendants had participated for over two years by filing a joint scheduling memorandum, trial bundle and witness statements. The objection was an afterthought and was overruled.

Outcome

Preliminary objection overruled; suit not abated and set down for scheduling on 20 January 2027

Facts

The plaintiff sued the defendants in the High Court at Mpigi. The last reply to the defendants' written statement of defence was filed on 6 November 2023, so that summons for directions ought to have been extracted by 4 December 2023 under Order 11A Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The plaintiff instead extracted summons for directions on 17 February 2024, a delay of about two months and 26 days. Notwithstanding the delay, the litigation continued: both parties filed a joint scheduling memorandum and their respective trial bundles in May 2024, and the defendants later filed their witness statements. When the matter came up for scheduling on 15 June 2026, counsel for the defendants raised a preliminary objection that the suit had abated automatically under Order 11A Rules 1(2) and (6). The objection was thus raised approximately two years and four months after the alleged default. The defendants demonstrated no specific prejudice arising from the delay and pointed to nothing showing that the trial could not fairly proceed.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit abated under Order 11A Rules 1(2) and (6) of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 (as amended) by reason of the plaintiff extracting summons for directions outside the prescribed 28 days.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Defendants' preliminary objection is hereby overruled.
  • The suit shall proceed for scheduling on the 20th day of January 2027 at 9:00 AM.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summons for Directions — Abatement under Order 11A Rule 6 is Discretionary, Not Automatic
Abatement of a suit under Order 11A Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules for failure to take out summons for directions within 28 days is not automatic; the court retains a discretion to determine whether abatement is warranted in the circumstances.
Statutory Interpretation — "Shall" in Procedural Rules — Distinction Between "Shall Abate" and "Shall Automatically Abate"
The word "shall" is not invariably mandatory and must be construed in light of the intent of the rule; where the same statutory instrument uses "shall automatically abate" in one provision and "shall abate" in another, the two expressions must be given different meanings, the latter preserving judicial discretion.
Civil Procedure — Abatement — Test for Exercise of Discretion — Prejudice and Progress of the Suit
A suit should be abated under Order 11A Rule 6 only where the court is satisfied that such an order is necessary to save the time and expense of a trial because the suit cannot progress with the dispatch that the circumstances and available court resources require; where the suit has progressed and no prejudice from the delay is demonstrated, abatement is not warranted, particularly since Order 11A Rule 1(7) would allow a fresh suit and generate a multiplicity of proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Waiver by Participation — Approbation and Reprobation
A party who actively participates in proceedings after an alleged procedural default, by signing a joint scheduling memorandum and filing a trial bundle and witness statements, acts inconsistently with a belief that the suit has abated and cannot approbate and reprobate by belatedly seeking a declaration of abatement at the scheduling stage; such an objection is properly treated as an afterthought.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (6)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Namulondo Irene v One To One Logistics Kenya Ltd and Another [2026] UGHC 831 (23 July 2026)
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.