Wakilii

Serunjogi v Ntege (Miscellaneous Application 189 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 290 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ex parte application to strike out Memorandum of Appeal for non-compliance with procedural requirements
Decision
Memorandum of Appeal and Civil Appeal No. 023 of 2024 struck out

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

Held that a Memorandum of Appeal that is neither signed by a judge, Deputy Registrar, or appointed officer nor sealed with the court's seal is incurably defective and a nullity under Order 5 Rule 1(5) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The requirement for signature and seal is mandatory, not directory. Non-compliance constitutes a fundamental defect that renders the Memorandum incompetent and the appeal premised on it an abuse of court process. The Respondent's failure to file an affidavit in reply within the prescribed timeline left the Applicant's averments uncontroverted and deemed admitted.

Outcome

Memorandum of Appeal and Civil Appeal No. 023 of 2024 struck out

Facts

The Applicant filed a miscellaneous application seeking to strike out the Respondent's Memorandum of Appeal and Civil Appeal No. 023 of 2024. The Applicant averred that the Memorandum of Appeal served on 6 August 2024 was neither signed by a judge, Deputy Registrar, or appointed officer nor sealed with the court's seal. The Notice of Motion was served on the Respondent's counsel on 15 November 2024. The Respondent was required to file an affidavit in reply by 21 November 2024 but failed to do so. Further hearing notices were served on 10 March 2025 and a courtesy letter was received by the Respondent's counsel on 11 April 2025. On 5 May 2025, the court permitted the application to proceed ex parte due to the Respondent's non-compliance. No affidavit in reply was filed, nor was leave sought to file out of time.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant's Application is unchallenged and should be granted as prayed.
  2. Whether the Respondent's Memorandum of Appeal is incurably and fatally defective in law, an illegality on court record, incompetent, frivolous, vexatious, a non-starter, and an abuse of court process, and should be struck out with costs.
  3. What remedies are available to the Applicant.

Orders

  • The Respondent's Memorandum of Appeal and Civil Appeal No. 023 of 2024 are hereby struck out as incurably defective, incompetent, and a nullity.
  • The Applicant is awarded the costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Court Process — Signature and Seal Requirements — Memorandum of Appeal
A Memorandum of Appeal, as a court process initiating appellate proceedings, must comply with Order 5 Rule 1(5) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires that every summons be signed by a judge or appointed officer and sealed with the seal of the court. The requirement is mandatory, and non-compliance renders the Memorandum incurably defective, incompetent, and a nullity ab initio.
Civil Procedure — Affidavit in Reply — Failure to File — Effect
A respondent's failure to file an affidavit in reply within the prescribed timeline of fifteen days from service results in the applicant's averments being deemed unchallenged, uncontroverted, and accepted as true. This constitutes an admission of the truth of the application's contents.
Civil Procedure — Procedural Timelines — Mandatory Compliance
Compliance with statutory and procedural timelines is mandatory. Non-compliance with procedural timelines is a fundamental defect, not a mere technicality, as it undermines the orderly and expeditious administration of justice. Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution does not permit defaulting litigants to evade procedural rules.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (13)

  • Stop and See (U) Limited v Tropical African Bank (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Patrick Senyondwa and Rose Nakito v Luck Nakitto (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1103 of 2018)
  • Akena Jabina and Another v Odongo Benjamin (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2018)
  • Ejab Family Investments and Trading Company Limited v Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 0001 of 2024)
  • Makerere University v St Mark Education Institute and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 378 of 1993)
  • David Lubuuka v Fred Joel Nsobya (Miscellaneous Application No. 357 of 2016)
  • H.G. Gandesha and Another v G.J. Lutaaya (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1989)
  • Visa Investments Ltd and Another v Jordan Sebuliba and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 453 of 2021)
  • H.G. Gandesha and Kampala Estates Ltd v G.J. Lutaaya (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1989)
  • Kinyara Sugar Limited v Kyomuhendo Pamela (Miscellaneous Application No. 61 of 2020)
  • KAUR Vs CITY MART [1967] E.A 108
  • Fredrick James Jjunju and Another v Madhvani Group Ltd and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 688 of 2015)
  • Namutebi Prossy v Bumba John Livingstone (Revision Cause No. 012 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Serunjogi v Ntege (Miscellaneous Application 189 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 290 (5 May 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.