Share
Odeba and Others v Oryema (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2021) [2023] UGHCCD 87 (31 March 2023)
- Citation
- [2023] UGHCCD 87
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Serunkuma, J
- Case number
- Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2021
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Serunkuma, J
- Case number
- Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2021
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that failure to return the summons for directions within 14 days as stipulated under Order XI A rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Amendment Rules, 2019 does not render the summons invalid. The rule is intended to facilitate case management and expeditious hearing, not to penalize parties for procedural lapses where no express penalty is provided. The use of the word 'shall' in the rule is directory, not mandatory, and should be interpreted to further the legislative intention of mitigating delays and inefficiencies in civil proceedings. Accordingly, the preliminary objection raised by the defendants was overruled and the application dismissed.
Court disposition
preliminary objection overruled; application dismissed
Orders
- The preliminary objection is overruled.
- The application is dismissed.
- Costs shall abide the main cause.
02
Material facts
Parties
Matia Odeba
Appellant Counsel: Paul AbitiWokorach Aldo
Appellant Counsel: Paul AbitiOkwong Ijino
Appellant Counsel: Paul AbitiWathum Ongier
Appellant Counsel: Paul AbitiOvon Owachi W
Appellant Counsel: Paul AbitiWathum Owachi Alfred
Appellant Counsel: Paul AbitiBarbara Amony Oryema
Respondent Counsel: Jude OgikSandra Oryema
Respondent Counsel: Jude OgikRosa Oryem
Respondent Counsel: Jude Ogik03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether failure to return summons for directions within 14 days under Order XI A rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Amendment Rules, 2019 renders the summons invalid.
- 02
Whether the preliminary objection raised by the defendants is sustainable.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellants argued that the summons for directions were not returned to court within the prescribed 14 days, contrary to Order XI A rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Amendment Rules, 2019, and therefore should be considered invalid. They sought to have the suit dismissed on this procedural ground.
- Respondent
- The respondents contended that Order XI A rule 1(3) does not prescribe any penalty for failure to return the summons within 14 days. They argued that the rule is intended to aid case management and expeditious hearing, not to be used as a weapon by an adverse party. They relied on case law to support the position that the word 'shall' in the rule is directory, not mandatory.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Mathias Lwanga Kaganda v. UEB; HCCS No. 0124 of 2003
Points of law can be raised at any stage of proceedings.
- 02
Geoffrey Wasswa Vs Army for Africa Ltd; Civil Suit No. 0127 of 2020
Order XI A rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Amendment Rules, 2019 is intended to mitigate delays and inefficiencies, and the word 'shall' may be construed as directory rather than mandatory.
- 03
Kagimu Moses Ggava and Others Vs Sekatawa Muhammad and Others; HC Misc. Appeal No. 0025 of 2020
A holistic and judicious approach should be adopted in applying procedural rules to achieve their intended objective.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that failure to return the summons for directions within 14 days as stipulated under Order XI A rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Amendment Rules, 2019 does not render the summons invalid. The rule is intended to facilitate case management and expeditious hearing, not to penalize parties for procedural lapses where no express penalty is provided. The use of the word 'shall' in the rule is directory, not mandatory, and should be interpreted to further the legislative intention of mitigating delays and inefficiencies in civil proceedings. Accordingly, the preliminary objection raised by the defendants was overruled and the application dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- Courts should adopt a holistic and judicious approach to the application of procedural rules to ensure the desired objective of expeditious case management is achieved.
- Procedural rules are not intended to be used as weapons by adverse parties but to facilitate the efficient administration of justice.
Court disposition
preliminary objection overruled; application dismissed
- The preliminary objection is overruled.
- The application is dismissed.
- Costs shall abide the main cause.
Source and reliance status
HC: Civil Division (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.
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA SITTING AT ARUA
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 0016 OF 2021
- MATIA ODEBA 1. - $2.$ WOKORACH ALDO - $3.$ OKWONG IJINO - WATHUM ONGIER $4.$ - 5. OVON OWACHI. W
6. WATHUM OWACHI ALFRED
(Suing on their own behalf and on behalf of 327 others
VERSUS
BARBARA AMONY ORYEMA $1.$
$2.$ SANDRA ORYEMA
ROSA ORYEM $3.$
\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
<pre>\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
(Administrators of the Estate of the late Peter Oryema Gwokto)
BEFORE: Hon. Justice Isah Serunkuma
RULING
The plaintiffs brought this suit in their own capacity and on behalf of 327 others against the defendants, as administrators of the estate of the late Peter Oryema Gwokto and in their own capacity for declarations that;
- a) A declaration that the late Peter Oryema Gwokto fraudulently acquired a leasehold certificate of title over the plaintiffs' land (now the suit land). - b) A declaration that the plaintiffs are the lawful owners of the disputed land. - c) An order for cancellation of the leasehold certificate of title issued to the late Peter Oryema Gwokto. - d) General damages.
Page $| 1$
Background
The plaintiff's case is that the disputed land has at all times belonged to Lwalo clan, the family of the late Sambu Dominico Ongwech and their fore fathers who have occupied the land customarily for over 3 to 4 generations. The Lwalo clan migrated from Ramogi Acholi and acquired the disputed land from the late Rwot Lei of Ragem Koch kingdom and have since been in occupation of the same since 18<sup>th</sup> century. Around 2017, the defendants claimed approximately 186 hectares of the disputed land which covers 3 villages falsely alleging that the same belonged to their late father Peter Oryema Gwokto.
The defendants embarked on selective evictions of some of the community members by instituting civil and criminal cases in Nebbi and Pakwach courts. The plaintiffs discovered that the defendants had fraudulently acquired a leasehold certificate of title comprised in LRV1980, Folio 25, Block 4, Jonam County, Nebbi District affecting over 333 villagers.
Representation.
Counsel Paul Abiti of M/S Mugera, Kusasira & Co. Advocates represented the appellants; while Counsel Jude Ogik of M/S Ogik & Co. Advocates represented the respondents.
Preliminary objection
Before the commencement of the hearing, the defendants raised a preliminary objection through a letter dated 26<sup>th</sup> November 2021 and argued that the plaintiffs took out the summons for directions on 10<sup>th</sup> November 2021 and served the defendants on 26<sup>th</sup> November 2021 contrary to Order 11 A rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure (amendment) Rules, 2019, which requires the same to be returned to court within 14 days of taking summons out.
The respondent filed written submissions in reply to the preliminary objection on the invalidity of the summons for directions. In their submissions, the defendants argue that Order XI A r. 1(3) of the said rule has no penalty for failure to return the summons to court within 14 days. That the rule was meant to aid court in case management and to ensure expeditious hearing of cases and not to act as a weapon to an adverse party. Counsel relied on the decision in Geoffrey Wasswa Vs Army for Africa Ltd; Civil Suit No. 0127 of 2020 in which it was held that the intention of the framers of Order XI A rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Amendment Rules, 2019 was to mitigate the delays and inefficiencies brought on by the actions of officers of court and the parties in civil proceedings.
Page $|2$
I have carefully considered the submissions of the parties and the authorities relied on.
According to Order 6 rule 28 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a point of law that is pleaded which when so raised is capable of disposing of the suit, may then by consent of the parties, or by order of the court on the application of either party, be set down for hearing and disposed of at any time before the hearing. (See also: Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v. West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696).
It is trite law that points of law can be raised at any stage of the proceedings as per the holding of *Hon. Mr. Justice Bashaija K. Andrew* in the case of Mathias Lwanga Kaganda v. UEB; HCCS No. 0124 of 2003.
The defendant's preliminary objection is premised on the summons for directions that were not returned within 14 days as stipulated under Order XI A rule 1 (3) of the Civil Procedure Amendment Rules, 2019.
Order XIA rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Amendment Rules 2019 provides for the return of Summons for Directions as follows;
"ORDER XIA— SUMMONS FOR DIRECTIONS
1. Summons for directions.
(3) The summons in sub rule (2) shall be returned within fourteen days from the date they are taken out".
This court has extensively discussed the wording of this rule with the use of the word 'shall' in the case of Geoffrey Wasswa Vs Army for Africa (Supra). In that case, it was held that 'shall' is sometime intended to be directory only. In that case, it is equivalent to 'may' and would be construed as merely permissive to carry out the legislative intention. Likewise, in Kagimu Moses Ggava and Others Vs Sekatawa Muhammad and Others; HC Misc. Appeal No. 0025 of 2020, Lady Justice Olive Kazaarwe Mukwaaya held that;
"The intention of Order XIA rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Amendment Rules 2019 was to mitigate delays and inefficiencies brought on by the actions of officers of court and parties to civil proceedings. In order that these rules achieve the desired objective, a holistic and judicious approach to their applications should be adopted by the courts".
Page $|3$
I find no reason to depart from the above decisions on the subject before me. Failure to return the summons within 14 days does not render the summons invalid. The preliminary objection is thus overruled. This application is accordingly dismissed. Costs shall abide the main cause.
$I\ so\ order$
Dated and Delivered this 31st day of March 2023.
Isah Serunkuma $\boldsymbol{JU}\boldsymbol{D}\boldsymbol{G}\boldsymbol{E}$
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.