Uganda Case Law

Kagina Paul and Others v Tusiime Ambrose

Kagina Paul and Others v Tusiime Ambrose (Miscellaneous Application 184 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 436 (18 June 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 184 of 2024

Judge

Allan Nshimye, J

The court found that the applicants failed to serve the application within the 21 days prescribed by Order 5 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, with service on the respondent's lawyers occurring on 1st July 2024 and the process server's affidavit indicating service on 27th June 2024, both dates being outside the statutory period from the date of issue (9th May 2024). There was no evidence that the applicants sought or obtained an extension of time as required by law. The contradiction in the dates of service and lack of clear evidence of timely service led the court to conclude that the…

Source excerpt

• Service Of Process
• Time Limits
• Notice Of Motion
• Summary Dismissal

Twaiman v Abdul & Others

Twaiman v Abdul & Others (Miscellaneous Application 39 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 616 (5 July 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 39 of 2022

Judge

Bukirwa, J

The court held that service of a Notice of Motion in a miscellaneous application is governed by Order 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires service within twenty-one days from the date of issue. However, where the original summons expire due to circumstances such as misplacement of the court file, and fresh summons are issued, the twenty-one-day period for service runs from the date of the new summons. In this case, the Applicant served the Respondent on the same day the fresh summons were issued, thus complying with the required timelines. The preliminary objection that the applicat…

Source excerpt

• Service Of Process
• Time Limits
• Preliminary Objection
• Notice Of Motion

Ndyamuhaki & Another v Smile Business Partners

Ndyamuhaki & Another v Smile Business Partners (Criminal Revision 12 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 284 (11 July 2023)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Revision 12 of 2022

Judge

Joyce Kavuma, J

The application was fatally defective due to late service on the respondent, contrary to the mandatory provisions of Order 5 rule 1(2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and there was no affidavit of service on record. The court found that the notice of motion was served nearly four months after filing, well outside the prescribed twenty-one days, and no application for extension of time was made. This procedural irregularity required dismissal of the application without consideration of its merits. Furthermore, even if the application had been properly served, the grounds advanced did not…

Source excerpt

• Revision Jurisdiction
• Service Of Process
• Time Limits
• Affidavit Of Service

All Muss Properties Uganda ltd & 2 Ors Vs CTM (U) Ltd & 2 Ors

All Muss Properties Uganda ltd & 2 Ors Vs CTM (U) Ltd & 2 Ors (Civil Application No. 379 of 2017) [2019] UGCA 134 (25 April 2019)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Application No. 379 of 2017

The Court of Appeal struck out a notice of appeal filed without leave, holding that leave had to be sought within 14 days and was filed out of time.

• Notice Of Appeal
• Leave To Appeal
• Essential Steps
• Time Limits
• Striking Out Proceedings
• Notice-of-appeal

Dr. Bwogi Kanyerezi v The Management Committee of Rubaga Girls' School

Dr. Bwogi Kanyerezi v The Management Committee of Rubaga Girls' School (Civil Application No. 12 of 1999) [1999] UGCA 76 (24 May 1999)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Application No. 12 of 1999

Judge

Okello, JA, Berko, JA, Kitumba, JA

The Court of Appeal struck out a notice of appeal and the appeal itself because service was effected outside the seven-day period in Rule 77(1) without an extension.

• Service Of Process
• Notice Of Appeal
• Time Limits
• Striking Out Appeal
• Notice-of-appeal
• Service-of-process

Mutanda v City Council of Kampala

Mutanda v City Council of Kampala (CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 50 OF 1998) [1999] UGCA 71 (11 January 1999)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 50 OF 1998

Judge

Okello, JA, Engwau, JA, Twinomujuni, JA

The Court held that the time for lodging an appeal does not begin to run until a true and correct copy of the record of proceedings is supplied to the intended appellant. Where the record initially supplied is riddled with mistakes and not a true copy of the original proceedings, the period taken to correct such mistakes by the Registrar is excluded from the computation of time for filing the appeal. The Court distinguished the present case from Hannington Wasswa Semakutu & Co. v. Maria Onyango Ochola, noting that in the latter, the Supreme Court did not believe the appellant's claim that the…

Source excerpt

• Appeals Procedure
• Notice Of Appeal
• Record Of Proceedings
• Time Limits