kiwanuka v attorney general of the republic of uganda 2019 eacj 45 29 october 2019

kiwanuka v attorney general of the republic of uganda 2019 eacj 45 29 october 2019

The Court exercised its discretion to enlarge the time for service of the Answer to the Reference, deemed the previously served Answer valid, declined to strike out the Answer and Affidavit in Reply (except paragraph 17), and disallowed judgment on admission.

Citation
kiwanuka v attorney general of the republic of uganda 2019 eacj 45 29 october 2019
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Male H. Mabirizi Kiwunuka; Respondent/applicant: Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda
Court
EACJ
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
29 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Consolidated Applications (no. 4 & 6 of 2019) Arising From Reference No. 6 of 2019 / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Application No. 6 of 2019 allowed; Application No. 4 of 2019 dismissed (save for expunging paragraph 17 of Affidavit in Reply); no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Service of Pleadings, Striking Out Pleadings, Judgment on Admission
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Regional Community Law Extension of Time Service of Pleadings Striking Out Pleadings Judgment on Admission

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Male H. Mabirizi Kiwunuka

Applicant/respondent

Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Answer to the Reference and Affidavit in Reply should be struck out for late service and procedural irregularities
  2. 2 Whether judgment on admission should be entered in favour of the Applicant/Respondent
  3. 3 Whether time for service of the Answer to the Reference should be enlarged and the previously served Answer validated

Ratio Decidendi

The Court exercised its discretion to enlarge the time for service of the Answer to the Reference, deemed the previously served Answer valid, declined to strike out the Answer and Affidavit in Reply (except paragraph 17), and disallowed judgment on admission.

Court Disposition

Application No. 6 of 2019 allowed; Application No. 4 of 2019 dismissed (save for expunging paragraph 17 of Affidavit in Reply); no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Answer to the Reference deemed validly served
  • Paragraph 17 of Affidavit in Reply expunged