Tuna Development Co LTD V Posta Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No 820 of 2021) 2022 UGHCCD 229 (24 October 2022)

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
MISC APPLLICATION NO. 820 OF 2021
[ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO. 298 OF 2021]
TUNA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED:::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT
VERSUS
UGANDA POST LIMITED

T/A POSTA UGANDA:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT
BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE SSEKAANA MUSA
RULING
The Applicant brought this miscellaneous application under Order 9 Rule

10, 11(2), Order 52 Rule (1), (2) and (3) CPR SI 71 1, S.33 Judicature Act, Cap
13 and S.98 CPA Cap 71 and all enabling laws. The application is by Notice
of motion for orders that;
1. An Interlocutory judgment be issued against the defendant in default
of filing defense to Civil Suit No. 298 of 2021.
2. The suit be set down for hearing ex-parte.
3. Costs of the application be provided for.
The application is based on grounds contained in the affidavit of Natuhwera

Betty the applicant’s director which briefly states;
1. The Applicant served the Respondent with summons to file written
statement of defense (WSD hereinafter) in the head suit on 18 th
October, 2021.
2. The Respondent was expected to file the WSD latest on 2 nd November,

2021 but failed to do so within time stipulated by the law and in the
summons.
3. The Respondent did not apply for the extension of time within which
to file WSD nor seek court’s validation of the defense filed out of time.
4. That it is fair and just for the court to enter default judgment against
the Respondent for failure to reply to the counterclaim.
The Respondent filed an affidavit in reply through Charles Opio-Ogwal-

Company Secretary opposed the application and contended as follows:
1. The respondent filed the written statement of defense on 29 th October
2021, the respondent was within the prerequisite time before the
expiry on 2nd November 2021.
2. That there is no way a default judgment and or an interlocutory

judgment can be entered yet the defense was filed within time.
3. That the non-service of the defense upon the Applicant was due to
lapse and or mistake of counsel who did not ensure service and or
check with court record as to whether the defense had been endorsed.
4. That counsel only picked the written statement of defence from court
on 4th November 2021 and effected service on the 5 th November 2021
upon the applicant.
5. That the Respondent prayed for the defense to be allowed, the time
enlarged for service of the same and or validating of the defense and
for hearing to proceed inter parties.
The applicant was represented by Kamba Hassan and Julius Turinawe while
the respondent was represented by Kiiza James.
The issue for court’s determination are;
Whether the Respondent filed its written statement of defense within the
requisite time and whether the Applicant is entitled to an interlocutory
judgment.
Determination
The applicant’s counsel submitted that the steps of filing a defense is

provided for under the CPR beginning with the provisions of Order 8 r 1 (2)
which reads as follows;
“where a defendant has been served with a summons in the form provided by rule
1(1)a of Order 5 of these rules, he or she shall, unless some other or further order is
made by the court, file his or her defense within fifteen days after service of the
summons.”
From the foregoing, the law requires that a defendant files his/her defense
within fifteen days from the date of receipt of summons by delivering copies
of the WSD to a proper officer of court who shall then sign and affix an
official seal on the documents. After the seal is fixed, a copy of the WSD shall
be served onto the opposite party. It therefore follows that filing involves
two steps which are placing the WSD on court record and further serving
the same to the opposite party.
The applicant counsel submitted that the respondent cannot seeks refuge
under Article 126 (2)(e) of the constitution of Uganda for failure to follow
timeline fixed by the CPR. The Supreme Court in Mulindwa George William
vs. Kisubika Joseph SCCS No 12 of 2014, emphasized the inapplicability of
Article 126 (2) (e) on grounds that it does not do away with the requirement
that litigation must comply with the Rule of procedure in litigation. The
Article merely gives constitutional force to the well settled common law
principle that rules of procedure act as handmaidens of justice.
Counsel further submitted that the respondent filed the WSD on 29 th October
2021 but did not serve the same upon the applicant until the 5 th day of
November 2021 way out of time.
Defense counsel submitted that WSD was filed within stipulated time of 15
days of service of summons though the same was not served for one reason
which was on grounds of mistake / negligence of Counsel Alice Mayanja in
not ensuring that the WSD is filed and served within the required time by
not following up with court clerks in ascertaining if the defense had been
lodged in compliance with the law before service can be effected.
Analysis
Counsel for the respondent having conceded to the fact that indeed they did
not serve Written Statement Defence in time for one reason or another is
clear indication Written Statement of Defence was not duly filed. The
respondent’s failure is attributed to Counsel Alice Mayanja’s negligence.
Supreme court has held in the case of Capt Philip Ongom vs. Catherine
Nyero Owota, SCCA No.14 of 2001 that a litigant should not bear the
consequences of an Advocate’s default….’’
It is trite law that a litigant who has instructed lawyers to pursue their case
cannot be condemned for not being vigilant in prosecuting their matters. See
the case of Yowasi Kabiguruka vs. Samuel Byarufu CACA NO.18 OF 2008
In this premise I am constrained not to visit counsel’s negligence onto her

client. The Supreme Court case of Simon Tendo Kabenge vs. Barclays Bank
& Anor SCCA No. 17 of 2015,cited to me by both parties , the learned Justice
stated that if the 15 days have crystallized but the defense is filed on court
record although not served on the opposite party then itself would prevent
a default judgment from being entered. It further stated that in instances
whereby the 15th day a defense is on court record but for unexplainable delay
on part of the court, the Written Statement of Defence is not signed and
sealed to enable service on the opposite party, then court may not allow a
default judgment against the defendant. The unexplainable delay must
however be subject to proof and the burden is on the defense counsel.
In the present case, as the Written Statement of Defence was not served to
the Applicant due to the lawyer’s negligence and rather not unexplained
delay on part of the court. However the Supreme Court decision is not
exclusive of other reasonable factors or even restrictive to other reasons from
being given.
This court being a court of justice invokes its powers under Sec 33 of the
Judicature Act, Cap 13 that states,” The High Court shall grant absolute or on
such remedies as any of the parties to a cause or matter is entitled to in respect of
any legal or equitable claim properly brought before it, so that as far as possible all
matters in controversy between the parties maybe completely and finally determined
and all multiplicities of legal proceedings concerning any of those matters avoided.”
In my view, counsel’s negligence as envisaged above can suffice to be yet

another justifiable reason this court can consider not to grant a default
/interlocutory judgment from being entered. I am therefore fortified in the
circumstance to state that an interlocutory judgment/default judgment
cannot be granted due to reasons stated above.
It bears emphasis however, that a defendant who fails to file pleadings is still
entitled to a hearing and especially when he/she appears in court. Such a
defendant can decide to reply solely on point of law which is embedded in
the case presented by the plaintiff without the need to file pleadings or
adduce evidence thereon. Such a defendant may decide to rest their case on
the plaintiff’s case and merely wish to address the court on issues raised by
the plaintiff’s case. The pleadings provide the framework for the
presentation of evidence at trial as they identify the issues which constitute
the focus of the dispute.
This court further notes that the applicant duly filed a reply to defence titled
“REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENCE” on the
18th November 2021 and on 19th November 2021 the filed the present
application. It is not clear why the applicant decided to bring such an
application where the position of the law has been well settled by the
Supreme Court; Simon Tendo Kabenge vs. Barclays Bank & Anor SCCA No.
17 of 2015.
Applications of this nature are wastage of courts valuable time and the
courts are choking with several miscellaneous applications filed by
advocates which has significantly contributed to increased volume of work
and hence backlog of cases.
This application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
I so Order
SSEKAANA MUSA
JUDGE
24TH OCTOBER 2022

Tuna Development Co LTD V Posta Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No 820 of 2021) 2022 UGHCCD 229 (24 October 2022)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tuna Development Co LTD V Posta Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No 820 of 2021) 2022 UGHCCD 229 (24 October 2022)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tuna Development Co LTD V Posta Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No 820 of 2021) 2022 UGHCCD 229 (24 October 2022)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

MISC APPLLICATION NO. 820 OF 2021

[ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO. 298 OF 2021]

TUNA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED:::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT

UGANDA POST LIMITED

BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE SSEKAANA MUSA

The Applicant brought this miscellaneous application under Order 9 Rule

2. The suit be set down for hearing ex-parte.

3. Costs of the application be provided for.

The application is based on grounds contained in the affidavit of Natuhwera

2. The Respondent was expected to file the WSD latest on 2 nd November,

The Respondent filed an affidavit in reply through Charles Opio-Ogwal-

2. That there is no way a default judgment and or an interlocutory

The issue for court’s determination are;

The applicant’s counsel submitted that the steps of filing a defense is

In this premise I am constrained not to visit counsel’s negligence onto her

In my view, counsel’s negligence as envisaged above can suffice to be yet

This application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.

You might also like