Yiga Musa v Diamond Trust Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 1106 of 2016)
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
The court held that the respondent's written statement of defence was validly filed within the prescribed fifteen-day period on 26 October 2016. The receipt number discrepancy (omission of the prefix '217') reflected the Commercial Court's accounting practice and did not invalidate the filing. The relevant filing fees of UGX 1,500 were paid and authenticated by the Uganda Revenue Authority. The application to strike out the defence was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Outcome
Application dismissed; written statement of defence found valid; main suit to proceed on the merits
Facts
The applicant filed civil suit 784 of 2016 against the respondent on 12 October 2016. The respondent filed a written statement of defence dated 19 October 2016, which bore a registry stamp showing receipt on 26 October 2016 at 4:58 pm. The applicant alleged the defence was filed late on 4 November 2016 and back-dated to 26 October, and that the court fees receipt was forged. Two versions of the defence appeared: one bearing receipt number 0001004791 (on court file) and another bearing 000104791 (attached to the application as Annexure C). The respondent produced evidence of payment via receipt 2170001004791 issued 19 October 2016 by Diamond Trust Bank and authenticated by Uganda Revenue Authority on 1 December 2016. The court found the three-digit prefix '217' was omitted in the court registry stamp as standard practice, and that the original defence on file showed valid filing on 26 October 2016 and proper payment of fees.
Issues
- Whether the respondent's written statement of defence and its annexures in Civil Suit No. 784 of 2016 should be struck off the court record.
- Whether a default judgment in Civil Suit No. 784 of 2016 should be entered for the applicant/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant.
- Whether the court should proceed as if the respondent/defendant had filed a defence.
- Whether costs of the application should be awarded to the applicant.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (14)
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Civil Procedure Act s.25(a)
- Civil Procedure Act s.27(1)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 8 r.2(1)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 r.5
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 r.10
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 r.3
- Judicature (Court Fees, Fines and Deposits) Rules SI 13-3 r.4
- Judicature (Court Fees, Fines and Deposits) Rules SI 13-3 r.6
- Judicature (Mediation) Rules 2013 r.5(2)
- Evidence Act Cap 6 s.113
- Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126(2)
Cases cited (4)
- Simon Tendo Kabenge v Barclays Bank (U) Ltd and Philip Dandee (Miscellaneous Application No. 623 of 2010)
- Cargo World Logistics Ltd v Royale Group Africa Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 403 of 2013)
- Makula International vs. His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and another 1982 HCB
- Belex Tours and Travel Ltd v Crane Bank and Another (Civil Appeal No. 71 of 2009)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.