[2022] UGHCLD 199
The applicant failed to comply with multiple court directives to effect service of the application and supporting submissions on the respondents. No affidavit of service was filed to demonstrate that service was effected as required by the Civil Procedure Rules. In the absence of evidence of proper service, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] UGHCLD 199
- Parties
- Applicant: Management Committee of St Vianney Junior School; Respondent: Mulyanti William; Respondent: Kiiza William
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application No. 790 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- Nkonge, J
- Legal Topics
- Service of Process, Affidavit of Service, Review of Orders
- 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
Management Committee of St Vianney Junior School
Applicant
Mulyanti William
Respondent
Kiiza William
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant complied with the court's directives to effect service of the application and written submissions upon the respondents within the prescribed time.
- 2 Whether the absence of proof of service by affidavit justified dismissal of the application for want of proper service.
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant failed to comply with multiple court directives to effect service of the application and supporting submissions on the respondents. No affidavit of service was filed to demonstrate that service was effected as required by the Civil Procedure Rules. In the absence of evidence of proper service, the court found that the applicant did not comply with its orders. Proper service of process is a mandatory procedural requirement, and failure to comply with it is fatal to the application. The application was therefore dismissed for want of proper service, with costs awarded to the respondents.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- This application is dismissed for want of proper service.
- Costs of the application are awarded to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
# IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
# (LAND DIVISION)
# **MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.790 OF 2022**
(Arising out of Miscellaneous Application No.1728 of 2021)
# (Arising from Civil Suit No.866 of 2021)
#### MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF
ST VIANNEY JUNIOR SCHOOL:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
$\mathsf{S}$
#### **VERSUS**
### 1. MULYANTI WILLIAM
2. KIIZA WILLIAM::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
#### 15 Before: Lady Justice Alexandra Nkonge Rugadya.
#### Ruling.
# **Introduction:**
The applicant brought this motion under Section 33 of the Judicature Act cap.13, Sections 98 & 82 of the Civil Procedure Act cap.71, Order 41 rules 4 & 9, Order 46 and Order 52 rules 1 & 20 **2of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1** seeking orders that;
- 1. The ruling and orders delivered by His Worship Simon Kintu Zirintusa in Miscellaneous Application No. 1728 of 2021 on 14t October 2021 and 17<sup>th</sup> January 2022 be reviewed and set aside; - $25$ 2. That the orders of a temporary injunction of the learned Assistant Registrar be discharged and or varied; - 3. Costs of the application be provided for.
### **Grounds of the application:**
30 On 17<sup>th</sup> June, 2022, this court issued orders directing the applicant to effect service of the application, as well as the written submissions in support thereof upon the respondents by 1<sup>st</sup> July 2022 but the same were never complied with.
Counsel for the respondents by letter dated $2<sup>nd</sup>$ September, 2022, brought to the attention of court the fact that the applicants did not comply with the directives issued by this court, and that the application was never served on the respondents.

On 15<sup>th</sup> September 2022, this court issued another directive ordering the applicant to effect service on the respondents by 29<sup>th</sup> September, 2022 but the applicants also ignored/neglected to comply with the same.
Order 49 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 stipulates that all other court processes must be served in a manner provided for service of summons. Such processes include a Notice of Motion.
According to **Order 5 rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules (supra),** proof of service of summons is by an affidavit of service, stating the time when, the manner in which summons was served, and the name, and address of the person, if any, identifying the person served and witnessing the delivery of summons.
Evidence of service of any court documents is by way of filing an affidavit of service and there appears to be none on the court file, to indicate the exact date of service of the application upon the respondents.
In the absence of any evidence that the application was served onto the respondents within the prescribed time, it is correct to state that the applicant did not comply with the orders of this court.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed, with costs, for want of proper service.
(labo) 15
$\mathsf{S}$
$10$
Alexandra Nkonge Rugadya Judge 10<sup>th</sup> October, 2022.
