Kiwanuka v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Consolidated Applications 4 of 2019; Consolidated Applications 6 of 2019)
Kiwanuka v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Consolidated Applications 4 of 2019; Consolidated Applications 6 of 2019) [2020] EACJ 27 (6 February 2020) (First Instance Division)
The court found that while the Answer to the Reference was served out of time, Rule 4 of the EACJ Rules empowers the court to enlarge time for sufficient reason. The Attorney General established sufficient reason for the late service through uncontroverted affidavit evidence. The court held that the designation of the pleading as 'Answer' instead of 'Response' was a procedural lapse that did not warrant striking out the document, as substance prevails over form. The Affidavit in Reply, though not expressly provided for in the Rules, was not filed out of time since no time frame is prescribed…
Source excerpt
- Extension Of Time
- Pleadings Striking Out
- Service Of Process
- Court Discretion
- Admissions And Denials
- Scandalous Material