[2005] UGHC 118

[2005] UGHC 118

The court found that the issues decided in High Court Civil Appeal No.41 of 2003 are not the same as those raised in Civil Suit No.501 of 2005, and therefore the suit is not res judicata. However, the court noted that summons to file a defence were issued on 12th May 2005 but there was no evidence of service upon...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] UGHC 118
Parties
Plaintiff: Hussen Mohammed; Plaintiff: Abid Alam; Plaintiff: A. I. Ahmed; Plaintiff: Mustaq Bheghani; Plaintiff: Ibrahim Benis; Plaintiff: Yusuf Shabdin; Plaintiff: Huseein Shabdin; Plaintiff: Talat Bachu; Defendant: Waheed Karim; Defendant: Mrs. Sulti Waheed Karim; Defendant: Abbas Namawa
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Cv. Cs. No. 501 of 05
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling
Outcome
suit dismissed
Legal Topics
Service of Summons, Res Judicata, Dismissal for Non Service
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Service of Summons Res Judicata Dismissal for Non Service

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hussen Mohammed

Plaintiff

Abid Alam

Plaintiff

A. I. Ahmed

Plaintiff

Mustaq Bheghani

Plaintiff

Ibrahim Benis

Plaintiff

Yusuf Shabdin

Plaintiff

Huseein Shabdin

Plaintiff

Talat Bachu

Plaintiff

Waheed Karim

Defendant

Mrs. Sulti Waheed Karim

Defendant

Abbas Namawa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the suit is res judicata in light of High Court Civil Appeal No.41 of 2003.
  2. 2 Whether the suit should be dismissed for non-service of summons to file a defence within the prescribed time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the issues decided in High Court Civil Appeal No.41 of 2003 are not the same as those raised in Civil Suit No.501 of 2005, and therefore the suit is not res judicata. However, the court noted that summons to file a defence were issued on 12th May 2005 but there was no evidence of service upon the defendants within the prescribed period of twenty-one days, nor was there any application for extension of time. In accordance with Order 5 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules as amended, failure to serve summons within the statutory period is fatal to the suit. Consequently, the suit was dismissed for non-service of summons to file a defence within the prescribed time.

Court Disposition

suit dismissed

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed for non-service of summons to file a defence within the prescribed time.
  • No order as to costs.