[2022] UGCommC 187
The court found that the applicant failed to serve the application within the twenty-one days prescribed by Order 5 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Furthermore, the applicant did not apply for an extension of time to serve the application as required by law. The court held that compliance with service...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] UGCommC 187
- Parties
- Applicant: Immanuel Agro Limited; Respondent: Express Airway Services Limited t/a BidAir Cargo
- Court
- Commercial Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 111 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- Anna B. Mugenyi, J
- Legal Topics
- Service of Process, Time Limits for Service, Dismissal for Noncompliance
- 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
Immanuel Agro Limited
Applicant
Express Airway Services Limited t/a BidAir Cargo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application should be dismissed for being served out of time contrary to Order 5 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the applicant sought extension of time for service as required by law.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to serve the application within the twenty-one days prescribed by Order 5 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Furthermore, the applicant did not apply for an extension of time to serve the application as required by law. The court held that compliance with service timelines is mandatory and failure to do so without seeking extension renders the application incompetent. As a result, the application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application is dismissed for being served out of time without extension.
- Costs are awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
#### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
# IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION)
### MISC. APPLICATION NO. 111 OF 2022
## IMMANUEL AGRO LIMITED ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
#### VERSES
### **EXPRESS AIRWAY SERVICES LIMITED T/A BIDAIR CARGO ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::**
### **BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE ANNA B. MUGENYI**
#### **RULING**
I have read the pleadings and written submissions of the parties in this matter.
Counsel for the Respondent raised a preliminary point of law to the effect that the Notice of Motion was served on the Respondent out of the prescribed time and the Application is therefore incompetent and should be dismissed under Order 5 rules (1) (2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Misc. Application 111/2022 was filed in Court on 31/1/2022 and was endorsed by the Registrar on 28<sup>th</sup> February 2022. The said Application was served on the Respondent on 2/6/2022; more than three months after the endorsement of the same by Court. Order 5 rule $1(2)$ of the CPR provides:
"Service of summons issued under sub-rule (1) of this rule shall be effected within twenty-one days from the date of issue; except that the time may be extended on application to the Court, made within fifteen days after the expiration of the twenty-one days, showing sufficient reasons for the extension."
Counsel for the Respondent cited case law that establishes that a Notice of Motion on Chamber Summons are treated as summons and must be served in the manner and within the time prescribed in Order 5 of the CPR; which I fully associate myself with (see Diary Corporation v Opio (2001-2005) HCB 113; Fredrick James Junju &
## Another v Medhvani Group Limited & Another M,A, 688/2015; Orient Bank Ltd v Avi Enterprises Ltd C. A OO2/2003),
In the present matter, the Applicant ought to have served the present Application within twenty-one days from 281212022 when the said application was endorsed and issued by Court i.e. by 2L1312022; but did not do so.
Further, the Applicant did not apply to Court to have time extended to serve the application in issue as provided under Order 5 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
In the premises; I find that the present application was seryed out of time prescribed by law and no application for extension of time to serye the same was made by the Applicant; and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
I do not find it necessary to address the rest of the issues raised by the Respondent's Counsel at this point.
......... ftyL & . Y-'k....
HON. LADY JUSTICE ANNA B. MUGENYI DATED l.tp..!lsl.t