Wekoye Micheal Timothy v Tara Kathryn Coughlin and Others [2023] UGHC 548
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 uploading an application on ECCMIS does not constitute effective service of summons where the respondent was not made aware of the application and did not attend the hearing. Service must produce the intended result of making the defendant aware of proceedings. Where summons are not served within twenty-one days and no extension is sought, the application must be dismissed without notice under Order 5 Rule 3 CPR.
Outcome
Application dismissed on preliminary objection for failure to effect service within the prescribed time
Facts
The Applicant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 749 of 2023 seeking to set aside a dismissal order and reinstate Civil Suit No. 616 of 2022. The application was filed on 25 May 2023 and signed by the Registrar on 5 June 2023. When the matter came up for hearing on 3 October 2023, the 1st and 2nd Respondents were not present. The 2nd Respondent raised a preliminary objection on 9 November 2023, submitting they had not been served and only discovered the application recently through ECCMIS. The Applicant admitted no physical service was effected but argued that uploading on ECCMIS constituted effective service. The 2nd Respondent was absent at the first hearing and only filed a reply on 3 November 2023, after the hearing date.
Issues
- Whether the 2nd Respondent was effectively served with the Notice of Motion
- Whether uploading an application on ECCMIS amounts to effective service of process
- Whether service of summons was effected within the time prescribed by Order 5 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Orders
- Preliminary objection allowed.
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the 2nd Respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 Rule 1(2)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 Rule 3
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 Rule 10
- Constitution (Integration of ICT into the Adjudication Process for Courts of Judicature) (Practice Direction) No. 2019
Cases cited (3)
- Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze
- Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 843 of 2021)
- Geoffrey Gatete and Another v William Kyobe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.