Wakilii

Omondi and 22 Others v Civicon Limited and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 119 of 2022)

Industrial Court · [2022] UGIC 11 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for substituted service and enlargement of time arising from Labour Dispute Reference No. 0039 of 2022
Decision
Application granted with directions for substituted service by newspaper publication and enlargement of time to effect service

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 Industrial Court granted leave for substituted service by newspaper publication where all attempts to serve the respondents at their registered and last known addresses had been futile. The Court also granted an enlargement of time to effect service, finding that the applicants had exercised due diligence and that the delay was not due to dilatory conduct. The Court applied Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities.

Outcome

Application granted with directions for substituted service by newspaper publication and enlargement of time to effect service

Facts

The applicants filed a labour dispute reference against the respondents seeking various remedies. In May 2022, they received summons for service upon the respondents. All attempts to serve the respondents at their last known address on Plot 53-67, Mulwana Road, Bwala Hill, Kampala, at the registered office at Plot 60-64, 6th Street Kampala, and by registered mail to P.O. Box 24544, Kampala, proved futile. The applicants conducted a search at the Companies Registry and obtained annual returns for the 1st Respondent for 2016. A postal receipt for registered mail under item RR223022968UG was produced. The applicants filed this application seeking orders for substituted service and enlargement of time to serve the notice of claim.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants should be granted leave for substituted service of summons on the respondents.
  2. Whether the applicants should be granted an enlargement of time to serve the notice of claim.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to serve the respondents by substituted service.
  • Summons shall be placed in either the New Vision or Daily Monitor Newspapers no later than 21 days from the date of the ruling.
  • Costs shall abide the outcome of the main claim.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Substituted Service — Requirements for Grant of Leave
Before granting an order of substituted service, a court must be satisfied that the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way. Service on a corporation is effected on the secretary, director, or principal officer, sent by registered post to the registered office or left at the place where the corporation carries on business. Where attempts at direct service at the last known address, registered address, and by registered mail have been futile, and a search at the Companies Registry has been conducted, the court will find that service through the ordinary process is impracticable and grant leave for substituted service.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Reason
The Industrial Court has power to extend time for sufficient reason. Sufficient reason relates to the inability or failure to take a particular step in time and that the delay has not been occasioned by dilatory conduct on the part of the applicant. Where attempts to serve the respondents were futile and the applicant exercised due diligence in trying to effect service, this constitutes sufficient cause for extension of time to serve summons.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Application of Article 126(2)(e)
Courts are enjoined to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution. Where an application for extension of time is filed after the expiration of the prescribed period but the respondents would suffer no prejudice if time were enlarged, and the applicant has shown due diligence, the court may grant the extension in the interests of substantive justice.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (8)

  • Oburu Amos & Anor v Equity Bank (U) Ltd (Commercial Court No. 146 of 2017)
  • Harriet Amony v Madhavani Group Ltd (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application No. 066 of 2019)
  • James Bwogi & Sons Enterprises Ltd v Kampala City Council (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2017)
  • Kampala District Land Board and Honondi Daniel v Yolamu Egondi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2003)
  • Pinnacle Projects Ltd v Business in Motion Consultants Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 362 of 2010)
  • Shanti v Hindocha [1973] EA 207
  • Kasirye Byaruhanga & Co Advocates v Uganda Development Bank (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1997)
  • Ojara Otto Julius v Okwera Benson (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0023 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Omondi_and_22_Others_v_Civicon_Limited_and_2_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._119_of_2022)_[2022]_UGIC_11_(5_December_2022)
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.