Download

Uganda Judgment

Commercial Court of Uganda

Intertech Industrial Machinery (U) Limited and Another v Kizito (Miscellaneous Application No. 304 of 2021) [2022] UGCommC 84 (24 May 2022)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the Plaintiffs (Respondents in this application) failed to take out summons for directions within the statutory period as required by Order XIA rules 2 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Amendment Rules 2019. The absence of any record of compliance led the court to conclude that Civil Suit No. 918 of 2020 had abated by operation of law. Consequently, the suit was struck out and costs were awarded to the Defendants (Applicants in this application). All pending applications arising from the abated suit were rendered moot and the respective files closed, with each party bearing their own costs for those applications.

Court disposition

suit struck out for abatement

Orders

  • Civil Suit No. 918 of 2020 is struck out for abatement.
  • Costs of the suit are awarded to the Defendants (Applicants in this application).
  • All pending applications arising from Civil Suit No. 918 of 2020 are overtaken by events and the respective files are closed, with each party bearing their own costs in respect of those applications.

02

Material facts

Parties

Intertech Industrial Machinery (U) Ltd & Anr

Applicant

Anthony Kizito

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether the failure to take out summons for directions within the prescribed period warranted the abatement and striking out of Civil Suit No. 918 of 2020.

Party arguments

Applicant
The Applicants argued that the Respondent, as Plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 918 of 2020, failed to comply with Order XIA rules 2 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Amendment Rules 2019 by not taking out summons for directions within 28 days from the date of filing the last reply (the WSD). They submitted that this non-compliance should result in the abatement and striking out of the suit.
Respondent
The Respondent did not present any argument or evidence to show compliance with the requirement to take out summons for directions within the stipulated time. There is nothing on record indicating that the Respondent took the necessary procedural steps.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Order XIA rules 2 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Amendment Rules 2019

    A suit abates if the Plaintiff fails to take out summons for directions within 28 days from the date of filing the last reply.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiffs (Respondents in this application) failed to take out summons for directions within the statutory period as required by Order XIA rules 2 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Amendment Rules 2019. The absence of any record of compliance led the court to conclude that Civil Suit No. 918 of 2020 had abated by operation of law. Consequently, the suit was struck out and costs were awarded to the Defendants (Applicants in this application). All pending applications arising from the abated suit were rendered moot and the respective files closed, with each party bearing their own costs for those applications.

Court disposition

suit struck out for abatement

  • Civil Suit No. 918 of 2020 is struck out for abatement.
  • Costs of the suit are awarded to the Defendants (Applicants in this application).
  • All pending applications arising from Civil Suit No. 918 of 2020 are overtaken by events and the respective files are closed, with each party bearing their own costs in respect of those applications.

Source and reliance status

Commercial Court of Uganda

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Commercial Court of Uganda

Judgment

[2022] UGCommC 84

![](_page_0_Picture_0.jpeg)

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

(COMMERCIAL COURT DIVISION)

5 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 304 OF 2021

*(All arising out of Civil Suit No. 918 of 2020)*

INTERTECH INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY (u) LTD & ANR

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANTS

VERSUS

10 ANTHONY KIZITO::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT

BEFORE HON. MR. JUSTICE RICHARD WEJULI WABWIRE

RULING

When this matter came up for hearing, Counsel for Applicant moved Court to have Civil Suit No. 918 of 2020 struck out for failure to comply with Order

15 XIA rules 2 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Amendment Rules 2019.

OrderXIA requires a Plaintiff( the Respondent in the instant Application) to take out summons for directions within 28 days from the date of filing the last reply, which in this case is the WSD of the Applicant, who is the defendant in CS 918/2020.

20 The Court Record shows that the Defendants (Applicants in the instant Application) filed their WSD on the 4th December 2020. There is nothing on record to show that the Plaintiffs (Respondents in the instant Application) ever took out summons for directions as required by the law.

In consequence, Civil Suit No, 918/2020 abated and is accordingly struck out

- 25 with costs awarded to the Defendants (Applicants in the instant Application). All pending Applications arising from the said Civil Suit are in consequence overtaken by events and the respective files accordingly closed with each party bearing their own costs in respect of the Applications. I so order. - Delivered at Kampala this 24th 30 day of May 2022.

Richard Wejuli Wabwire

JUDGE

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Order XIA rules 2 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Amendment Rules 2019

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.