[1995] UGHCCD 6

[1995] UGHCCD 6

The court held that since the applicant's earlier application for leave to appear and defend had been dismissed, the applicant could not file a fresh application for leave without first applying to set aside the ex-parte dismissal under Order 9 rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Rules or appealing the dismissal. The present application, having been brought under the wrong provisions and without first addressing the prior dismissal, was therefore incompetent. The preliminary objection was upheld and the application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Citation
[1995] UGHCCD 6
Parties
Applicant: Sambih Brothers Ltd; Respondent: SCOUL
Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
18 September 199530 October 199518 September 1995
Case Number
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 28/95
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Preliminary Objection Ruling
Outcome
preliminary objection upheld; application dismissed with costs
Judges
Kato, J
Legal Topics
Summary Procedure, Leave to Appear and Defend, Preliminary Objection, Dismissal of Application
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Summary Procedure Leave to Appear and Defend Preliminary Objection Dismissal of Application

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sambih Brothers Ltd

Applicant

SCOUL

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Preliminary Objection Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appear and defend was properly brought before the court under the correct provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant could seek leave to appear and defend after a previous application for the same had been dismissed without first seeking to set aside the ex-parte dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that since the applicant's earlier application for leave to appear and defend had been dismissed, the applicant could not file a fresh application for leave without first applying to set aside the ex-parte dismissal under Order 9 rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Rules or appealing the dismissal. The present application, having been brought under the wrong provisions and without first addressing the prior dismissal, was therefore incompetent. The preliminary objection was upheld and the application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection upheld; application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is upheld.
  • The fresh application for leave to appear and defend is dismissed with costs to the respondent.