Share
Mutyaba v I & M Bank (U) Limited (Miscellaneous Application 640 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 187 (3 July 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] UGCommC 187
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Commercial Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Harriet Grace Magala, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 640 of 2024
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Commercial Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Harriet Grace Magala, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 640 of 2024
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The application for leave to appear and defend was filed outside the prescribed ten-day period as stipulated under Order 36 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The computation of time includes public holidays and weekends unless the last day falls on such a day, in which case the period extends to the next working day. In this case, the last day was not a public holiday or weekend, and the application was filed one day late. The constitutional principle under Article 126(2)(e) does not apply to extend statutory time limits for instituting proceedings. The absence of an application to extend time renders the application incompetent. Consequently, the application and all related applications are struck out as having been filed out of time.
Court disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- MA 0640 of 2024 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
- MA 0965 of 2024, MA 0981 of 2024, and MA 0982 of 2024 are struck out with no order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Mutyaba Martin
Applicant Counsel: Zenith Law AdvocatesI & M Bank (U) Limited
Respondent Counsel: Libra Advocates & Consultants03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application for leave to appear and defend was filed within the prescribed time period.
- 02
Whether public holidays and weekends are excluded from computation of time under Order 36 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 03
Whether Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution can cure the late filing of the application.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Counsel for the Applicant argued that the application was filed within time because the period included Good Friday, Sunday, and Monday, which were public holidays. The Applicant contended that these days should be excluded from the computation of time, and therefore the application was timely.
- Respondent
- Counsel for the Respondent maintained that public holidays and weekends are included in the computation of time unless the last day falls on such a day. The Respondent argued that the application was filed out of time and should be struck out, as the computation did not warrant exclusion of the holidays.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Farid Meghani v Uganda Revenue Authority Civil Appeal No. 0006 of 2021; section 34 of the Interpretation Act
When a period of limitation is stated in days, the day of the event that triggers the period is excluded. Every day thereafter is counted, including Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays; the last day is included unless it falls on a weekend or holiday.
- 02
Longinus Oroni Muranga v David Masika Mafumbo Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 0319 of 2013; Article 126(2)(e) Constitution of Uganda
Failure to file an application within the prescribed time cannot be cured by the constitutional principle of administering justice without undue regard to technicalities.
- 03
Order 36 rule 3(1) and (2) Civil Procedure Rules
Order 36 rule 3(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules prescribes a ten-day period for a defendant to apply for leave to appear and defend, after which default judgment may be entered.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The application for leave to appear and defend was filed outside the prescribed ten-day period as stipulated under Order 36 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The computation of time includes public holidays and weekends unless the last day falls on such a day, in which case the period extends to the next working day. In this case, the last day was not a public holiday or weekend, and the application was filed one day late. The constitutional principle under Article 126(2)(e) does not apply to extend statutory time limits for instituting proceedings. The absence of an application to extend time renders the application incompetent. Consequently, the application and all related applications are struck out as having been filed out of time.
Obiter and limits
- The overriding objective principle and inherent jurisdiction do not apply to extend statutory time limits for instituting court proceedings.
- Justice must be administered without undue regard to technicalities, but this does not override express statutory time limitations.
Court disposition
application dismissed
- MA 0640 of 2024 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
- MA 0965 of 2024, MA 0981 of 2024, and MA 0982 of 2024 are struck out with no order as to costs.
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.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Commercial Court of Uganda
Judgment
5 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 0640 OF 2024
(ARISING OUT OF CIVIL SUIT NO. 0296 OF 2024)
10 MUTYABA MARTIN :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT
VERSUS
I & M BANK (U) LIMITED :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT
Before Hon. Lady Justice Harriet Grace Magala
Ruling
15 Background
This is an application for leave to appear and defend the main suit.
However, the Respondent / Plaintiff applied for a default judgment under Order 36 rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules as amended and the same was entered by this honorable court on the 15th April 2024.
- 20 The Applicant has since filed various applications; to wit: - a) MA 0965 of 2024 an application to set aside the default judgment; - b) MA 0981 of 2024 an application for stay of execution; and - c) MA 0982 of 2024- an application for an interim stay of execution.
5 Representation and Hearing
The matter was called for hearing on the 25th June 2024.
The Applicant was represented by M/s Zenith Law Advocates while the Respondent was represented by M/s Libra Advocates & Consultants.
When the matter came for hearing, before we could get into the merits of the 10 Application, there was a debate between court and learned counsel of both Parties as to whether the time was properly computed. According to learned counsel for the Applicant, the application was filed within time given that Friday was a public holiday (Good Friday), Sunday and Monday were public holidays as well. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent begged to defer and was insistent that public
15 holidays and weekends are considered provided it was not the last day. The matter was adjourned to determine the issue of whether time was properly computed. And if indeed the Applicant had filed this application out of time, all the three application mentioned in the background above would be either overtaken by events or be struck out.
20 Determination
Under Order 36 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules amended, a defendant upon whom summons and a specially endorsed plaint are served has ten (10) days within which to apply for leave to appear and defend. Under Order 36 rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, when the defendant does not apply for leave to defend the suit 25 within the prescribed time, a default judgment is then entered.
In the present case, the Summons and specially endorsed plaint were issued by this court on the 20th March 2024 and the service of the same was effected onto
the Defendant on the 25 5 th March 2024. This implies that the Defendant ought to have filed this application by or on the 4th April 2024. This application was filed on the 5th April 2024 at 4:21pm.
In the case of Farid Meghani versus Uganda Revenue Authority Civil Appeal No. 0006 of 2021, Hon. Justice Stephen Mubiru in his judgment on how time is
10 computed held that:
"*When a period of limitation is stated in days or a unit of time, the day of the event that triggers the period is excluded. Every day thereafter is counted, including immediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays; and the last day of the period is included. But if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday or legal* 15 *holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. (see section 34 of the Interpretation Act).*
The finding of the Mubiru, J in the Farid Meghani case supra is also in line with Order 51 rules 2,3 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules as amended.
Failure by the Applicant to file the application for leave to appear in defend out of 20 time and in the absence of an application before court to extend the time cannot even be cured by Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. I am persuaded by the case of Longinus Oroni Muranga versus David Masika Mafumbo, Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 0319 of 2013. This was an appeal from the ruling of the High Court of Kenya where the Court allowed a preliminary 25 objection to an application for judicial review and struck out the judicial review application as having been filed outside the time limited by court. The Appellants in this matter conceded in the High Court that the application would be out of time if public holidays and weekends are included in the computation of time. It was the
Page 3 of 5
5 Appellant's case that public holidays and weekends should not be excluded from computation of time. In this present case, the Applicant argued that the application was filed within time given the Easter holidays and the weekend.
Lastly, the Appellant in Longinus Oroni Muranga case sought to rely on Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution which is similar to our Article 126 (2)(e) of the
10 Constitution which is to the effect that justice shall be administered without undue regard to technicalities. The justices of appeal held that:
"*It is also true that the High Court was required to apply the overriding objective principle which is to facilitate the just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of disputes. The High Court has also inherent* 15 *jurisdiction. However, those principles do not apply to the time limited by law for instituting court proceedings. They apply to competent court proceedings which a court has jurisdiction to entertain. The time limited by the court which was in conformity with the law for instituting judicial review applications goes to the competence of the application and to the* 20 *jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the application. Since the application was filed out of time and the time had not been extended by court, the decision of the High Court to strike out the application was correct".*
- 5 For the reasons given above, this application is dismissed with no order as to costs. It therefore follows that MA 0965 of 2024 – an application to set aside the default judgment, MA 0981 of 2024 – an application for stay of execution; and MA 0982 of 2024- an application for an interim stay of execution are hereby struck out with no order as to costs. - 10 I so find.
Dated and signed at Kampala this 3rd day of July 2024.
Harriet Grace MAGALA
Judge
Delivered online (ECCMIS) this 4th 15 day of July 2024.
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.