Topic: Application to Appear and Defend – Computation of time
Date of Judgment: 3rd July 2024
Court: High Court of Uganda at Kampala, Commercial Division
Case Number: Miscellaneous Application No. 640 of 2024 (Arising out of Civil Suit No. 296 of 2024)
Judge: Hon. Lady Justice Harriet Grace Magala
Summary Facts of the Case
The Applicant, Mutyaba Martin, filed an application for leave to appear and defend the main summary suit.
The Respondent, I & M Bank (U) Limited, had obtained a default judgment on 15th April 2024 under Order 36 Rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules due to the Applicant’s failure to apply for leave to appear and defend the Suit within the prescribed time.
The Applicant attributed his failure to file the application for leave to appear and defend to his computation of the time prescribed of 10 days from the date of service of the summary suit as excluding weekends and public holidays.
The Respondent contended that the only time weekends and holidays are factored in the computation of time in which to file the application for leave to appear and defend is when the weekend or the holiday is the last day of filing the Application.
Legal Issues Before the Court
- Whether the Application for leave to appear and defend was filed within the prescribed time
The Decision of the Court
The Court determined that the summons and the specially endorsed plaint were served on 25th March 2024, making the deadline of filing an application for leave to appear and defend 4th April 2024.
However, the Application was filed on 5th April 2024 at 4:21 pm.
If the Easter weekend was to be factored in the computation of time then the Application would have been filed out of time and if the Easter weekend was to be excluded in the computation of time then the Application would be within time.
The court relied on the case of Farid Meghani v. Uganda Revenue Authority, which stated the computation of time to include immediate weekends and public holidays, unless the last day falls on a weekend or public holiday, to find that the application was filed a day late and without an application to extend time, and therefore was filed out of time.
The Applicant’s argument, invoking Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution to disregard technicalities, was rejected.
The Court relied on the Kenyan case of Longinus Oroni Muranga v. David Masika Mafumbo, to hold that failure by an Applicant to file an application for leave to appear and defend in time and in the absence of an application before the Court to extend the time cannot even be cured by Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda.
Justice should be administered without undue technicalities only within competent court proceedings.
Key Quote: “When a period of limitation is stated in days or a unit of time, the day of the event that triggers the period is excluded. Every day thereafter is counted, including immediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays; and the last day of the period is included. But if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday.” – Justice Steven Mubiru in Farid Menghani’s case above, quoted by Justice Grace Harriet Magala.
Law Applied
- Order 36 Rules 3(1) and 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda.
- Interpretation Act, Section 34 (regarding the computation of time)
- Longinus Oroni Muranga v. David Masika Mafumbo Civil Appeal No. 0319 of 2013.
- Farid Meghani v. Uganda Revenue Authority Civil Appeal No. 0006 of 2021
Counsel on Record
For the Applicant: M/s Zenith Law Advocates
For the Respondent: M/s Libra Advocates & Consultants
Conclusion
This case illustrates the computation of time in which to file applications with the Court.
It also demonstrates the strict enforcement of timelines in which to make the filings as failure to adhere and in the absence of an extension of time granted by the Court, could be fatal.