[2008] UGCommC 46

[2008] UGCommC 46

The court held that filing a defence is not a condition precedent to making an application under Order 9 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, provided the applicant gives notice of intention to defend and applies within the time limited for service of a defence. However, the application in this case was filed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] UGCommC 46
Parties
Applicant: Mark Graves; Respondent: Balton (U) Ltd
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
HCT-00-CC-MA 158 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Legal Topics
Jurisdictional Objections, Abuse of Process, Time Limits for Filing, Notice of Intention to Defend
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Jurisdictional Objections Abuse of Process Time Limits for Filing Notice of Intention to Defend

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Graves

Applicant

Balton (U) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objections

  1. 1 Whether a defendant must file a defence before making an application under Order 9 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the application was filed within the time limited for service of a defence.
  3. 3 Whether the grounds raised in the application properly dispute the jurisdiction of the court under Order 9 rule 3.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that filing a defence is not a condition precedent to making an application under Order 9 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, provided the applicant gives notice of intention to defend and applies within the time limited for service of a defence. However, the application in this case was filed outside the prescribed 15-day period following substituted service by advertisement, and thus was out of time. Furthermore, the grounds advanced by the applicant did not properly dispute the jurisdiction of the court as required under Order 9 rule 3, but rather related to alleged non-disclosure and abuse of process, which do not affect jurisdiction. The court therefore dismissed the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.