Wakilii

Turinawe Rwagomani Amos and 2 Others v Nkuuna Abdullah and 2 others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1796 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 188 · 2022 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application arising from civil suit seeking to strike out respondents' written statement of defence and counterclaim
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed on the merits of the application

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 Order 5 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which prescribes a 21-day period for service of summons, applies only to suits commenced by plaint through issuance of summons, not to applications brought by notice of motion. Applications by notice of motion are governed by Order 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which does not prescribe specific timelines for service. The preliminary objection was overruled.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed on the merits of the application

Facts

The applicants filed a notice of motion on 4 October 2021 seeking to strike out the respondents' written statement of defence and counterclaim. The application was fixed for hearing on 2 June 2022 but was only served on the respondents on 12 August 2022. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the motion was served beyond the 21-day period prescribed under Order 5 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and ought to be struck out. The applicants opposed the objection, arguing that Order 5 rule 1 applies only to suits commenced by plaint and not to notices of motion, which are governed by Order 52.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants' notice of motion was served out of time and ought to be struck out under Order 5 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether Order 5 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies to applications brought by notice of motion.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • Costs awarded to the applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Distinction Between Summons and Notice of Motion
Order 5 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which prescribes timelines for service of summons, applies only to suits commenced by plaint through the issuance of summons by the court, and does not apply to applications brought by notice of motion.
Civil Procedure — Notice of Motion — Service Requirements
Applications by notice of motion are governed by Order 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which does not prescribe specific timelines for service. The fixing of the hearing date by the court dictates the timelines for service on the opposite party.
Civil Procedure — Definition of Suit — Statutory Interpretation
A suit is defined under section 2(x) of the Civil Procedure Act as all civil proceedings commenced in any manner prescribed. A notice of motion signed by the applicant or their advocate is not a suit commenced by summons issued by the authority of the court.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (5)

  • Ssenkubuge Gladys and Another v Kibirango Joyce (Miscellaneous Application No. 1704 of 2019)
  • Karyobwera versus Tumwebwa 2005 EA at page 86
  • R.H. K Ddungu v The Cooperative Bank Limited (in Liquidation) (Miscellaneous Cause No. 33 of 2012)
  • Bazira Construction Engineering Works Limited v EA Steel Corporation (1992-1993) HCB 220
  • Masaba v Republic (1967) EA 488

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Turinawe_Rwagomani_Amos_and_2_Others_v_Nkuuna_Abdullah_and_2_others_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._1796_of_2021)_[2022]_UGHCLD_188_(13_September_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.