Wakilii

Ssentongo v Orient Bank Limited (Consolidated Civil Suit No. 466 of 2018)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 85 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application by defendant for leave to file written submissions in rejoinder following plaintiff's belated filing of submissions
Decision
Defendant granted leave to file limited written submissions in rejoinder within 14 days; plaintiff may file rejoinder within 5 days thereafter

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 court granted the defendant leave to file written submissions in rejoinder, limited to addressing matters arising from the plaintiff's belatedly filed submissions not covered in the defendant's earlier submissions. The plaintiff had failed to comply with court-ordered timelines, filing submissions four days after receiving the defendant's submissions, thereby reversing the normal order of submissions and creating a procedural irregularity requiring the court's intervention under its inherent powers.

Outcome

Defendant granted leave to file limited written submissions in rejoinder within 14 days; plaintiff may file rejoinder within 5 days thereafter

Facts

The court had directed the plaintiff to file written submissions by 25 March 2022, the defendant to reply by 19 April 2022, and the plaintiff to file a rejoinder by 3 May 2022. Neither party complied with these timelines. The defendant filed and served its written submissions on 5 May 2022. The plaintiff subsequently filed its written submissions on 9 May 2022, four days after receiving the defendant's submissions. On 13 May 2022, when the matter came up for mention, defendant's counsel sought leave to file written submissions in rejoinder, arguing that the plaintiff had negated its right to rejoin by filing after studying the defendant's submissions. Plaintiff's counsel opposed the application, stating he had notified the defendant by phone call of the late filing and that his submissions were not a response to the defendant's submissions.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant should be granted leave to file written submissions in rejoinder after the plaintiff belatedly filed submissions following receipt of the defendant's submissions.

Orders

  • Counsel for the Defendant shall file written submissions in rejoinder.
  • The submissions shall be limited to only addressing those matters arising from the Plaintiff's submissions which are not covered in the Defendants written submissions that were filed on 5th May 2022.
  • The Defendant's written submissions in rejoinder shall be filed in this honourable Court within a period of 14 (fourteen) days from the date of this ruling.
  • A rejoinder by the Plaintiff, if any, will be filed within 5 days from the 15th day of the date hereof.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Written Submissions — Order of Filing — Failure to Comply with Court Timelines
Where a plaintiff fails to file written submissions within court-ordered timelines and subsequently files submissions after receiving and potentially perusing the defendant's submissions, thereby reversing the established order of submissions, the court may exercise its inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to grant the defendant leave to file submissions in rejoinder to address matters not covered in the defendant's earlier submissions.
Civil Procedure — Commercial Court — Non-Compliance with Practice Directions — Court's Powers
Rule 7 of the Constitution (Commercial Court) (Practice) Directions S.I No. 6 empowers the Commercial Court Judge to refuse to extend any period of compliance, dismiss the action in whole or in part, or award costs where a party fails to comply in a timely manner with any order made by the court in a commercial action.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers — Section 98 Civil Procedure Act and Section 33 Judicature Act
Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act bestows inherent powers on the court to make such orders as are necessary for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of court process, while section 33 of the Judicature Act mandates the court to grant such remedies as a party may be entitled to so that all matters in controversy between the parties may be completely and finally determined.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (2)

  • Banco Arabe Espaniol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Esero Kasule v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 688 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssentongo v Orient Bank Limited (Consolidated Civil Suit No. 466 of 2018) [2022] UGCommC 85 (19 May 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.