Wakilii

Tibagwa and 3 Others v Tumusiime (Miscellaneous Application 5 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 336 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to remove caveat and amend certificate of title following death of joint tenant
Decision
Application struck out for procedural non-compliance; parties at liberty to refile with proper service

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

Application struck out for service out of time. The application was filed on 5 July 2022 but served on 2 December 2022, contrary to Order 5 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules requiring service within 21 days. No application for extension of time was made. Court declined to award costs given the parties are family members disputing the estate of their late father.

Outcome

Application struck out for procedural non-compliance; parties at liberty to refile with proper service

Facts

The applicants and respondent are children of the late Tibagwa Joshua Mijumbi who died intestate on 2 November 2021. During his lifetime on 12 July 2012, the deceased acquired land comprised in FRV 1228, Folio 18, Block 5, Plot 34 at Kakoora, Hoima District, registered as joint tenant with the four applicants. After his death on 24 May 2022, the applicants applied to the Registrar of Titles to have the deceased's name removed from the title so the property would vest in them as surviving joint tenants. The respondent, also a beneficiary of the estate, lodged a caveat forbidding dealings with the land. The applicants then brought this application seeking removal of the caveat and amendment of the certificate of title. The application was filed on 5 July 2022 but served on the respondent on 2 December 2022.

Issues

  1. Whether the application was served within the time prescribed by the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the application should be struck out for service out of time without leave of court.

Orders

  • Application struck out.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Time Limits — Service of Notice of Motion
A Notice of Motion under Order 49 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules must be served in the manner provided under Order 5 rules 1 and 2, which requires service within 21 days of filing, not the 15 days applicable to interlocutory applications under Order 12 rule 3.
Civil Procedure — Service Out of Time — Extension of Time — Requirement for Leave
Where service of an application is effected outside the time prescribed by the Civil Procedure Rules and no application for extension of time has been made, the court will strike out the application for non-compliance with procedural requirements.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (2)

  • Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Kanyabwera v Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tibagwa_and_3_Others_v_Tumusiime_(Miscellaneous_Application_5_of_2022)_[2023]_UGHCLD_336_(31_August_2023)
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.