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

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

The Court held that while late service of the Answer to the Reference contravened Rule 30(1), the Attorney General established sufficient reason for the lapse, and the Court exercised its discretion under Rule 4 to enlarge time and validate service. The designation of the pleading as 'Answer' instead of 'Response' was a procedural lapse not fatal to its validity. The Affidavit in Reply, though not expressly provided for in the Rules, was not filed out of time as no such time frame exists. The pleadings did not contain general or evasive denials sufficient to warrant being struck off, nor were they frivolous or vexatious. However, paragraph 17 of the Affidavit in Reply was expunged as...

Citation
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
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Male H. Mabirizi Kiwanuka; Respondent/applicant: Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda
Court
EACJ
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
6 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Consolidated Interlocutory Applications (nos. 4 & 6 of 2019) Arising From Reference No. 6 of 2019 / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Application No. 4 of 2019 dismissed; Application No. 6 of 2019 allowed in part; paragraph 17 of the Affidavit in Reply expunged; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Service of Pleadings, Striking Out Pleadings, Court's Discretionary Powers, Procedural Compliance
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Regional Integration Law Extension of Time Service of Pleadings Striking Out Pleadings Court's Discretionary Powers Procedural Compliance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Male H. Mabirizi Kiwanuka

Applicant/respondent

Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Consolidated Interlocutory Applications (nos. 4 & 6 of 2019) Arising From Reference No. 6 of 2019 / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether late service of the Answer to the Reference and Affidavit in Reply warranted striking them off the record
  2. 2 Whether the Court should grant an extension of time for service of the Answer to the Reference
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings contained general/evasive denials, were frivolous, vexatious, or contained scandalous material

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that while late service of the Answer to the Reference contravened Rule 30(1), the Attorney General established sufficient reason for the lapse, and the Court exercised its discretion under Rule 4 to enlarge time and validate service. The designation of the pleading as 'Answer' instead of 'Response' was a procedural lapse not fatal to its validity. The Affidavit in Reply, though not expressly provided for in the Rules, was not filed out of time as no such time frame exists. The pleadings did not contain general or evasive denials sufficient to warrant being struck off, nor were they frivolous or vexatious. However, paragraph 17 of the Affidavit in Reply was expunged as...

Court Disposition

Application No. 4 of 2019 dismissed; Application No. 6 of 2019 allowed in part; paragraph 17 of the Affidavit in Reply expunged; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Decline to strike out the Answer to the Reference.
  • Decline to strike down the Affidavit in Reply in its entirety but expunge paragraph 17 thereof.