[2002] UGHC 11

[2002] UGHC 11

The court found that the applicant complied with the requirements of rule 6 of the Civil Procedure (Government Proceedings) Rules by serving the Attorney General with the summons more than seven days before the return date. The Attorney General, though served, failed to appear in court. On this basis, the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] UGHC 11
Parties
Applicant: Agasa Maingi; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
17 May 2002
Case Number
Case No 0095 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
judgment in default entered against respondent with costs to applicant
Legal Topics
Judgment in Default, Government Proceedings, Service of Process
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Judgment in Default Government Proceedings Service of Process

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Agasa Maingi

Applicant

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether judgment in default can be entered against the government under rule 6 of the Civil Procedure (Government Proceedings) Rules.
  2. 2 Whether judgment on admission can be entered against the respondent based on an alleged admission by the Inspector General of Government.
  3. 3 Whether the application was properly served in accordance with the rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant complied with the requirements of rule 6 of the Civil Procedure (Government Proceedings) Rules by serving the Attorney General with the summons more than seven days before the return date. The Attorney General, though served, failed to appear in court. On this basis, the application for judgment in default succeeded. The alternative prayer for judgment on admission was rejected as misconceived, since the alleged admission was made by the Inspector General of Government, who was not a party to the suit, and therefore could not bind the Attorney General. The court held that only admissions made by parties to the suit are relevant for purposes of Order 11...

Court Disposition

judgment in default entered against respondent with costs to applicant

Orders

  • Judgment in default is entered against the respondent/defendant.
  • Costs of the suit and of this application are awarded to the applicant/plaintiff.