Wakilii

Rwamyeri v Registered Trustees of the Diocese of Fort Portal (HCT-01-LD-CS 27 of 2021)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 936 · 2024 Application Granted — Suit Abated AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objection concerning abatement of civil suit for failure to extract summons for directions
Decision
Suit abated and dismissed with costs to the defendant

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 a suit abates under Order 11A Rules 1(2) and (6) of the Civil Procedure Rules where the plaintiff fails to extract a summons for directions within 28 days of filing the last reply. The plaintiff filed his reply on 14 October 2022 but had not taken out a summons for directions almost two years later. The court rejected the plaintiff's counsel's explanations for the delay, finding that counsel wrote to the trial judge seeking schedules instead of properly extracting a summons for directions through the Deputy Registrar as required by procedural rules, constituting a serious departure from the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Suit abated and dismissed with costs to the defendant

Facts

The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant on 18 August 2021. The defendant was served with summons on 24 August 2022 and filed a written statement of defence on 19 September 2022. The plaintiff filed his reply to the written statement of defence on 14 October 2022. Under Order 11A Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the plaintiff was required to extract a summons for directions within 28 days of filing the reply, but failed to do so. When the matter came up for mention on 6 September 2024, almost two years after the last reply, no summons for directions had been extracted. The plaintiff's counsel explained that he received instructions on 3 October 2023 to take over the case, and instead of extracting a summons for directions through the Deputy Registrar, he wrote to the trial judge on 1 February 2024 requesting schedules for filing trial bundles. On 6 September 2024, the defendant raised a preliminary objection that the suit should abate under Order 11A Rules 1(2) and (6) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether the instant suit should abate in line with Order 11A Rules 1(2) and (6) of the Civil Procedure Rules for failure to extract a summons for directions within the prescribed time.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection upheld.
  • Suit declared abated and dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summons for Directions — Failure to Extract — Abatement of Suit
Under Order 11A Rules 1(2) and (6) of the Civil Procedure Rules as amended, a suit shall abate if the plaintiff does not take out a summons for directions within 28 days from the date of the last reply or rejoinder.
Civil Procedure — Summons for Directions — Procedure — Proper Forum
A summons for directions must be extracted through the Deputy Registrar, not by writing to the trial judge, as summons for directions involve administrative and procedural matters that do not require substantive judicial determination and are handled by registrars under Order 50 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Abatement — Discretion of Court — Change of Counsel
Change of counsel after the expiry of the time limit for extracting a summons for directions does not automatically excuse non-compliance with Order 11A of the Civil Procedure Rules; counsel taking over a case must correct procedural defects by following proper procedural channels rather than seeking administrative orders from the trial judge.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (4)

  • Kampala Associated Advocates v Katamba Ssemakula (Misc. Application No. 873 of 2019)
  • Gama Distillers Ltd v Bikanza Ezra (HCCS No. 60 of 2021)
  • Phelps v Button [2016] EWHC 3185
  • Hon Annah Tweheyo v Kamwenge District Local Government (HCCS No. 25 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rwamyeri v Registered Trustees of the Diocese of Fort Portal (HCT-01-LD-CS 27 of 2021) [2024] UGHC 936 (6 August 2024)
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.