Wakilii

Turyamureeba Julius and Others v Nakaseke District Local Government (Miscellaneous Cause 10 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 368 · 2025 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objection in judicial review application
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to substantive hearing

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 Rule 7(3) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 has two limbs: the first requires affidavits in reply to be filed as soon as practicable after initial service; the second prescribes a 56-day timeline only where the applicant amends the motion or files further affidavits under Rule 7(1). Where no specific timeline applies, affidavits in reply must be filed within a reasonable time before the hearing to allow the applicant opportunity to respond. Preliminary objection overruled.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to substantive hearing

Facts

The applicants brought a judicial review application. The respondent was served with the application on 11 November 2024 and filed affidavits in reply on 20 March 2025. The applicants raised a preliminary objection that the affidavits in reply were filed out of time, arguing that Rule 7(3) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules required filing within 56 days of service (by 27 December 2024). The respondent contended that the 56-day rule applies only where the court permits amendment or further affidavits under Rule 7(1), and that the affidavits were filed within reasonable time. The hearing took place on 23 April 2025, and the applicants had filed an affidavit in rejoinder on 14 April 2025.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent's affidavits in reply were filed out of time.
  2. Whether affidavits filed out of time should be struck off the court record.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • Court to proceed to determine the application on its merits.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Judicial Review — Affidavits in Reply — Time Limits for Filing
Rule 7(3) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 is couched in two limbs: the first limb requires any respondent who intends to use an affidavit at the hearing to file it as soon as practicable after service of the initial notice of motion; the second limb prescribes a 56-day timeline only where the applicant has amended the motion or filed further affidavits under Rule 7(1) and the respondent must reply to those amendments or additional affidavits.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits in Reply — Reasonable Time for Filing
Where the rules do not specify a timeline for filing affidavits in reply, the respondent must file and serve the affidavit in reply within a reasonable time before the hearing date, sufficient to allow the applicant a fair opportunity to respond by way of rejoinder.
Statutory Interpretation — Procedural Rules — Flexibility in Absence of Express Time Limits
Where a rules committee has not prescribed a specific time limit for a procedural step, this indicates the flexibility with which courts are intended to deal with such matters, and courts should assess compliance based on reasonableness and fairness to the parties.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.7(1)
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.7(3)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.10 r.8

Cases cited (2)

  • Dr. Lam Lagoro James v Muni University (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 07 of 2016)
  • Mwanguhya Fenehasi v King Oyo Nyimba Kabamba Iguru (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 33 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Turyamureeba Julius and Others v Nakaseke District Local Government (Miscellaneous Cause 10 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 368 (2 June 2025)
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.