Wakilii

The Registered Trustees of Child Restoration Outreach v Departed Asian Property Custodian Board & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 121 of 2024) [20

High Court · [2024] UGHC 121 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of time to file reply to written statement of defence and counter claim out of time, arising from Land Suit No. 18 of 2024
Decision
Applicant granted leave to file reply out of time but ordered to pay costs to the 2nd Respondent

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 granted the applicant leave to file a reply to the written statement of defence and counter claim out of time, notwithstanding dilatory conduct by counsel. While the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient reasons for the delay, the respondent did not establish how it would be prejudiced by granting the extension, particularly as the main suit had not yet commenced hearing. The court invoked Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution to prioritise substantive justice over technicalities. Costs were awarded to the respondent.

Outcome

Applicant granted leave to file reply out of time but ordered to pay costs to the 2nd Respondent

Facts

The applicant was served with the 2nd defendant's written statement of defence and counter claim on 26 March 2024. Under Order 8 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the applicant had until 10 April 2024 to file a reply but failed to do so. The applicant filed this application seeking leave to file the reply out of time, claiming that counsel was preoccupied with urgent applications for interim and temporary injunction because the 2nd defendant was threatening to take over the suit property. The 2nd respondent opposed the application, arguing that by 10 April 2024, one application had been disposed of and the others were either pending or already filed, thus the delay was not excusable. The respondent also contended that it had already applied for default judgment and would be prejudiced by the grant of the application.

Issues

  1. Whether this application raises grounds for the grant of leave to file a reply to the 2nd Respondent's counter claim out of time?
  2. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Applicant is granted leave to file its reply to the written statement of defence and to the counter claim within 5 days from the date of this ruling.
  • Costs of this application are awarded to the 2nd Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Principles for Grant — Sufficient Reasons, Dilatory Conduct, and Prejudice
In determining an application for extension of time, the court must consider three questions: whether the applicant has established sufficient reasons for the extension, whether the applicant is guilty of dilatory conduct, and whether any injustice will be caused if the application is not granted.
Civil Procedure — Mistake of Counsel — When Not a Sufficient Ground — Busy Schedule and Deliberate Delay
A busy schedule of an advocate does not amount to mistake of counsel for purposes of extending time. Mistake of counsel arises only where due to some inadvertent act or omission, the advocate does or omits to do something that prejudices the client's interest, and the act or omission must be solely attributable to professional negligence. Where an applicant is aware of the duty to reply but intentionally decides to delay with a view to filing an application for extension later, this constitutes dilatory conduct.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Prejudice to Opposite Party — Burden of Proof
Where an applicant for extension of time has been found at fault, the court may nonetheless grant the extension if the respondent fails to clearly demonstrate how they would be prejudiced by the grant of the application, particularly where the main suit has not yet commenced hearing.
Constitutional Law — Substantive Justice — Article 126(2)(e) — Extension of Time
Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution enjoins courts to do substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities. This does not mean courts should not have regard to technicalities, but where adherence to technicalities may deny a party substantive justice, the court should invoke that constitutional provision.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (7)

  • Molly Kyalikunda Turinawe & 4 Others v Engineer Ephraim Turinawe & Another (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 27 of 2010)
  • Mugo & Others v Wanjiru & Another [1970] EA 481
  • ABC Capital Bank Limited V. A-Industries Ltd and 2 others
  • Hajati Safina Nababi v Yafesi Lele (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1998)
  • Kasule Samuel v Mubeezi James & Others (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 2015)
  • Byansi Elias & Another v Kiryomunju Tofasi (Civil Appeal No. 029 of 2010)
  • Horizon Coaches v Edward Rurangaranga & Mbarara Municipal Council (SCCA No. 18 of 2009)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

The Registered Trustees of Child Restoration Outreach v Departed Asian Property Custodian Board & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 121 of 2024) [20
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.