Wakilii

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

High Court · [2024] UGHC 1070 · 2024 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to file a reply to counter claim out of time arising from Land Suit No. 18 of 2024
Decision
Applicant granted leave to file reply out of time within 5 days; costs awarded to 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

Court granted leave to file a reply to counter claim out of time despite finding the applicant guilty of dilatory conduct. The applicant's counsel's claim of pressure from pending injunction applications did not constitute sufficient cause, as it amounted to a busy schedule rather than inadvertent mistake. However, applying Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution and the principle of substantive justice, the court granted leave because the respondent failed to demonstrate prejudice and the main suit had not commenced. Costs awarded to the respondent.

Outcome

Applicant granted leave to file reply out of time within 5 days; costs awarded to 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 15 days (until 10 April 2024) to file its reply to the counter claim. The applicant failed to file within time and instead filed this application seeking leave to file out of time. The applicant claimed its counsel was under pressure due to pending applications for interim and temporary injunctions arising from the 2nd defendant's threats to take over the suit property. The 2nd respondent opposed, arguing that by 10 April 2024, one application had been disposed of and another was awaiting ruling, so the pressure claim was unfounded. The 2nd respondent had already applied for default judgment awaiting formal proof.

Issues

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

Orders

  • Applicant 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 awarded to the 2nd Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Extension of Time — Principles — Mistake of Counsel
A busy schedule of an advocate does not amount to mistake of counsel for purposes of extension of time. Mistake of counsel arises where due to inadvertent act or omission the advocate does or omits to do something that prejudices the litigant's interest, and the litigant was not party to or aware of the act or omission. The act or omission must be solely attributable to professional negligence and conduct of the advocate.
Extension of Time — Application — Principles — Substantive Justice
Where an applicant has failed to establish sufficient reasons for extension of time and is guilty of dilatory conduct, the court may nonetheless grant the application in exercise of its discretion where the opposite party has not demonstrated prejudice and adherence to technicalities would deny substantive justice under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.
Extension of Time — Dilatory Conduct — Costs
Where the court grants an application for extension of time despite finding the applicant at fault for dilatory conduct, the costs of the application should be awarded to the respondent to reflect the applicant's failure to comply with procedural timelines.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (7)

  • Molly Kyalikunda Turinawe and 4 Others v Engineer Ephraim Turinawe & Another (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 27 of 2010)
  • Mugo and Others v Wanjiru and 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 and Another v Kiryomunju Tofasi (Civil Appeal No. 029 of 2010)
  • Horizon Coaches v Edward Rurangaranga and 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) [2024] UGHC 1070 (14 November 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.