Wakilii

Turyamwijuka v Compassion International & Anor (HCT-00-CV-CS- No. 0115 of 2010)

High Court · [2012] UGHC 121 · 2012 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection to written statement of defence in first instance civil suit for unlawful termination
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on merits

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 filing of a defence is complete once delivered to court within the prescribed time. The Civil Procedure Rules do not prescribe a time limit within which a defendant must serve a copy of the written statement of defence on the plaintiff, except where a counter-defendant is not a party to the suit. Service and filing are distinct procedural steps. To require service within the filing period would impermissibly reduce the time allowed to file. The preliminary objection was dismissed and the defence properly admitted.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on merits

Facts

The plaintiff sued the defendants for unlawful termination claiming damages. Service was effected on 30 June 2010. The defendants filed their written statement of defence on 13 July 2010 within the prescribed time. When the suit came up for hearing, plaintiff's counsel raised a preliminary objection that the written statement of defence had never been served on the plaintiff and should be struck out. Counsel argued that under Order 8 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, filing is not complete until a duplicate of the defence is served on the opposite party. Defendants' counsel responded that the court should simply hand over a copy of the defence to the plaintiff's counsel.

Issues

  1. Whether filing of a written statement of defence is complete only when it is both filed on record and served on the plaintiff within the time allowed to file the defence.
  2. Whether the Civil Procedure Rules prescribe a time limit within which a defendant must serve a copy of the written statement of defence on the plaintiff.
  3. Whether a written statement of defence filed on record but not served on the plaintiff should be struck out.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection dismissed.
  • The written statement of defence is properly before court.
  • Hearing of the case to proceed on merit.
  • Costs of the preliminary objection awarded to the defendants in any event.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Filing of Pleadings — Written Statement of Defence — Distinction Between Filing and Service
Filing of a written statement of defence is complete once it is delivered to court within the time prescribed in the summons. Service of the defence on the plaintiff is a separate procedural step not subject to the same time limit.
Civil Procedure — Service of Pleadings — Time Limits — Written Statement of Defence
The Civil Procedure Rules do not prescribe a time limit within which a defendant must serve a copy of the written statement of defence on the plaintiff, except where a counter-defendant who is not a party to the suit must be served within 21 days from the date of filing the defence in accordance with Order 5 rule 1(2).
Civil Procedure — Interpretation of Rules — Order 8 Rule 8 — Filing Period for Defence with Counterclaim
Where a defendant files a defence with a counterclaim, the time period within which he or she is required to file the defence refers to the filing of both documents, not to the service of those documents on the plaintiff. A defendant filing a defence together with a counterclaim does not enjoy longer time than a party filing a defence simpliciter.
Civil Procedure — Filing of Defence — Effect of Order 9 Rule 1(1) — Certificate of Filing
Order 9 rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules is conclusive on what constitutes filing of a defence. A defence is filed when it is delivered to the proper officer with the required particulars, a copy is sealed with the official seal showing the date, and that sealed copy is returned to the person filing. Service on the plaintiff is not a requirement of filing.
Civil Procedure — Right to Fair Hearing — Natural Justice — Access to Court
It is a fundamental rule of natural justice that all parties to a dispute be accorded an opportunity to be heard and the matter disposed of on merits. Shutting out a defendant who has duly filed the defence in time would violate the right to a fair hearing under article 28(1) of the Constitution.
Civil Procedure — Service of Defence — Court's Power to Direct Service
Where a defendant has filed a defence on record but has not served it on the plaintiff, there is nothing to stop the court from directing the defendant to serve a copy of the defence on the plaintiff at any time after filing, and if need be, limiting the time within which to effect service.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (5)

  • Mwesigwa Geoffrey Philip v Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 200 of 2011)
  • Nile Breweries Ltd v Bruno Ozunga T/A Nebbi Boss Stores (HCS No. 580 of 2006)
  • Attorney General of Uganda & Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd v Westmont Land (Asia) & 2 others (Miscellaneous Application No. 595 of 1999)
  • Mark Grawes v Balton (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2008)
  • Protection Security Services v Eastern Builders & Engineers Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 566 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Turyamwijuka v Compassion International & Anor (HCT-00-CV-CS- No. 0115 of 2010) [2012] UGHC 121 (4 July 2012)
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.