Wakilii

Soroti District Land Board v Okim (Miscellaneous Application 177 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 569 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to file written statement of defence out of time arising from Civil Suit No. 019 of 2022
Decision
Applicant granted leave to file written statement of defence out of time to the counterclaim in Civil Suit No. 019 of 2022

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 service of a counterclaim on Soroti District Land Board was not properly effected under Order 29 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules where the process server's affidavit failed to identify which officer at the Lands Registry received the summons and did not clearly indicate how service was effected on the corporate body. Application for leave to file defence out of time allowed.

Outcome

Applicant granted leave to file written statement of defence out of time to the counterclaim in Civil Suit No. 019 of 2022

Facts

Soroti District Land Board was the 2nd defendant to a counterclaim in Civil Suit No. 019 of 2022 concerning land ownership. The respondent Okim Eric and the plaintiff claimed ownership of suit land allocated by the applicant. The applicant sought leave to file a defence out of time, claiming it was never properly served with the counterclaim. The respondent contended that service was properly effected at the Lands Registry of Soroti District Local Government and that the applicant was aware of the matter but waived participation by conduct. The applicant maintained it only became aware of the matter through respondent's counsel.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant was rightly served with summons in Civil Suit No. 019 of 2022?
  2. Whether the Applicant has a justifiable cause to file her defence out of time?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The Applicant is granted leave to file a written statement of defence out of time.
  • No order as to costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Statutory Corporations — Requirements for Valid Service
Service of process on a statutory corporation under Order 29 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules must be effected on the secretary, any director or principal officer, or by leaving or sending it by post to the registered office, and the affidavit of service must clearly state the time, manner of service, and name and address of the person served as required by Order 5 rule 16.
Civil Procedure — Affidavit of Service — Sufficiency of Evidence — Identification Requirements
An affidavit of service that fails to clearly identify which officer of a corporate body received service and does not specify the manner in which service was effected is insufficient to prove proper service under Order 5 rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Justifiable Cause — Improper Service
Where service of a counterclaim on a statutory corporation was not properly effected in accordance with the law, the corporation has justifiable cause to seek leave to file a defence out of time under Order 51 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (5)

  • Century Enterprises Ltd v Greenland Bank (in liquidation) (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 916 of 2004)
  • Wakiso District Land Board v National Forest Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 2060 of 2022)
  • Franco Mugumya v Total (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 28 of 2013)
  • Rosette Kizito v Administrator General and Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 52 of 1995)
  • Trust Bank v Portway Stores Ltd [2000] EA 296

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Soroti District Land Board v Okim (Miscellaneous Application 177 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 569 (26 June 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.