Wakilii

Owor Agree and Another v Centenary Bank and Another [2025] UGHC 185

High Court · 2025 Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objections raised by the 2nd Defendant challenging the competence of the suit and counterclaims
Decision
Suit and all counterclaims dismissed

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 High Court held that the suit abated for failure to take out summons for directions within the mandatory 28-day period under Order 11 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2019. The court further held that the 1st Defendant's counterclaim was incompetent because a defendant cannot counterclaim against a co-defendant alone; a counterclaim must include the plaintiff as a counter-defendant. The 2nd Defendant's counterclaim also abated for the same procedural failure. All claims and counterclaims were dismissed, with each party bearing own costs.

Outcome

Suit and all counterclaims dismissed

Facts

The plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 25 of 2023 against Centenary Rural Development Bank (1st Defendant) and Othieno Eriya (2nd Defendant). Both defendants filed written statements of defence with counterclaims. The 1st Defendant's counterclaim named the 2nd Defendant and other persons not party to the main suit as counter-defendants. The last pleading on record was a reply to the 2nd Defendant's counterclaim filed on 20 September 2023. The plaintiffs failed to take out summons for directions within 28 days of the last reply as required by Order 11 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2019. The 2nd Defendant raised three preliminary objections: that the suit abated, that the plaint disclosed no cause of action against him, and that the 1st Defendant's counterclaim was incompetent.

Issues

  1. Whether Civil Suit No. 25 of 2023 abated for failure to take out summons for directions?
  2. Whether the Plaintiffs' plaint discloses a cause of action against the 2nd Defendant?
  3. Whether the 1st Defendant's counterclaim is incompetent?

Orders

  • Civil Suit No. 25 of 2023 dismissed for failure to take out summons for directions.
  • 1st Defendant's counterclaim in Civil Suit No. 25 of 2023 dismissed for being incompetent.
  • 2nd Defendant's counterclaim in Civil Suit No. 25 of 2023 dismissed for failure to take out summons for directions.
  • Each party to bear own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summons for Directions — Mandatory Nature — Consequences of Non-Compliance
The requirement under Order 11 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2019 to take out summons for directions within 28 days of the last pleading is mandatory, and failure to comply results in automatic abatement of the suit.
Civil Procedure — Counterclaims — Competence — Counterclaim Against Co-Defendant
A defendant cannot file a counterclaim against a co-defendant alone. A counterclaim under Order 8 rules 2 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules must include the plaintiff as a counter-defendant; otherwise the counterclaim is incompetent.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers — Limits on Exercise
The inherent powers of the court under section 33 of the Judicature Act cannot be invoked to sustain an incompetent pleading where existing procedural rules adequately address the circumstances.
Civil Procedure — Counterclaims — Summons for Directions — Applicability
A counterclaim is an independent suit to which the procedural requirement of taking out summons for directions applies. Failure to take out summons for directions results in abatement of the counterclaim.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (11)

  • Kalemesa Samuel Wilson v Kaggwa Christopher Chris and Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 776 of 2023)
  • C.C Chandran & Associated Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (High Court Civil Suit No. 917 of 2019)
  • Abdul Ddamulira v Ms Xsabo Power Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 46 of 2021)
  • Kampala Associated Advocates v Katamba Ssemakula (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 677 of 2021)
  • Opaye Michael Ibiola and Others v Opoya John and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 5 of 2022)
  • Suuta Proscovia v Magabane David and Mulekwe Michael (High Court Civil Appeal No. 123 of 2016)
  • Uganda Land Commission v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Chemical Distributors & Others vs Byaruhanga Silver Company Cause No.142 of 2017
  • Kaahwa Stephen and Another v Kalema Hannington (High Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2011)
  • Erinest Kabyanga v Sanyi Patrick and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 304 of 2002)
  • Good African Foundation Ltd and Another v Agricultural Business Initiative Trust (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1592 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Owor Agree and Another v Centenary Bank and Another (25 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 185 (7 February 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.