[2023] UGHCCD 47
The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with the court's directions regarding service of summons and pleadings upon the respondent. The absence of service meant the respondent was not properly notified, and as such, the application could not be entertained. The court emphasized that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] UGHCCD 47
- Parties
- Applicant: Abubakar Ramathan; Respondent: Aisha Banura Abubakar
- Court
- HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application No. 48 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- Wagona, J
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Divorce Proceedings, Nonservice of Summons
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Abubakar Ramathan
Applicant
Aisha Banura Abubakar
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for stay of execution can be entertained when summons were not served upon the respondent.
- 2 Whether nonservice of court summons warrants dismissal of the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with the court's directions regarding service of summons and pleadings upon the respondent. The absence of service meant the respondent was not properly notified, and as such, the application could not be entertained. The court emphasized that compliance with procedural requirements, especially service of process, is mandatory and failure to do so results in dismissal under Order 5 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. No orders as to costs were made.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- Application dismissed under Order 5 rule 3 for nonservice of court summons upon the respondent.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
## **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT FORT PORTAL MISC. APPLN NO. 048 OF 2022 (ARISING FROM HCT – 01 – CV – CA 004 OF 2021)** 5 **(ARISING FROM FPT DIVORCE CAUSE NO. 07 OF 2018) ABUBAKAR RAMATHAN :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT VERSUS AISHA BANURA ABUBAKAR :::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT**
## 10 **BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE VINCENT WAGONA**
## **RULING**
The applicant brought this application under Sections 14, 33, 38 and 39 of the Judicature Act, Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 22 rule 23 and Order 43 rule 4 (3) and 50 rule 8 and 52 rules 1 and 2 of 15 the Civil Procedure Rules for orders that:
1. The execution of the judgment and order against the Applicant in Divorce Cause No. 07 of 2018 against the Applicant be stayed pending appeal
2. That the costs of taking out the Application be provided to the Applicant.
The Summons in this application were endorsed by the learned Assistant Registrar on the 31st May 2022 and the same were not served since all 5 the copies are still on record. Court further gave directions to progress
the application to wit:
- 1. The applicant was to file and serve the application together with the submissions by the 10th of October 2022. - 2. The Respondent was to file and serve the affidavit in reply and written submissions if any by 24 10 th October 2022. - 3. A rejoinder if any was to be filed on 28th October 2022 and ruling was fixed for 10th November 2022.
On the 10th day of November 2022, none of the parties were present and their advocates were also absent. The matter was forwarded to me for 15 further management.
It is trite law that orders of court are not issued in vein and parties must comply with the directions given by court. *(See Ekau David Vs. Dr. Ruth Aceng& 2 others, Civil Application No. 746 of 2018).*
In this case the applicant did not comply with the schedule given 20 specifically as concerns service of the summons/pleadings upon the Respondent.
**2 | P a g e**
I will thus take the view that summons were not effected upon the Respondent within time as ordered by court.
In the premises, I dismiss this application under Order 5 rule 3 for nonservice of Court Summons upon the Respondent with no orders as to 5 costs.
I so order.
Vincent Wagona
**High Court Judge**
## 10 **FORT-PORTAL**
**27.02.2023**
