High Court Reaffirms Mandatory Nature of Summons for Directions under Order 11A of The Civil Procedure Rules
- Waboga David
- May 28
- 3 min read
Area of Law: Civil Procedure- Abatement of Suits
Introduction
The High Court has once again made it clear that when someone files a case in court, they must follow all the rules — and do so on time. One of those important rules is that the person who starts the case (the plaintiff) must take a step called “summons for directions” within 28 days after receiving the last response from the other side.
What Is “Abatement”?
The law says that if this 28-day step is not taken, the case “abates.” In simple terms, this means the case is automatically brought to an end, not because the claim is weak, but because the person bringing the case failed to follow the procedure in a timely manner.
This rule is found in Order 11A of the Civil Procedure Rules, which was updated in 2019 to help courts handle cases faster and avoid unnecessary delays.
Why the 28-Day Rule Matters
The court uses the summons for directions to help both parties prepare for the trial. It’s like a planning meeting where the court checks whether the case is ready to move forward. That’s why the law says this step must be done within 28 days after the last reply has been made.
In a previous case (Gama Distillers Ltd v Bikanza Ezra), the court explained that these rules were introduced to make sure cases don’t drag on for too long.
Consequences of Non-Compliance
Order 11A Rule 6 is explicit: failure to take out summons for directions within the stipulated period leads to abatement of the suit. The use of the word “shall” confirms the mandatory nature of this requirement.
In Kalemesa Samuel Wilson v Kaggwa Christopher Chris & 735 Others (Misc. App. No. 776 of 2023), the Court reiterated that if the plaintiff fails to take out summons within 28 days of the last reply, the suit abates automatically.
What Happened in the Recent Case?
In the present case, the plaint was filed on 15th July 2024, and the defendant’s written statement of defence was filed on 17th July 2024. The plaintiff had 15 days thereafter to file a reply under Order 8 Rule 18(1) and 28 days to take out summons for directions from the last reply (or from the defence, if no reply was filed).
The 28-day period elapsed on 1st August 2024, without the plaintiff having taken out summons. Although plaintiff’s counsel wrote to the defendant on 6th August 2024 seeking consent to extend time under Order 51 Rule 7, this was after the statutory period had lapsed. Moreover, filing a reply is discretionary unless responding to a counterclaim. Thus, waiting for the defendant’s consent does not excuse non-compliance.
No Sufficient Justification for Delay
Citing the case of Phelps v Button [2016] EWHC 3185, Hon. Justice Stephen Mubiru in Kampala Associated Advocates v Katamba Ssemakula (Misc. App. No. 873 of 2019) laid out key considerations in determining whether a suit should abate:
Length of the delay
Reasons advanced for the delay
Degree of non-compliance with court rules
Prejudice to the defendant
Impact on the trial and on other court users
In this case, the Court found no sufficient justification for the plaintiff’s inaction. By the time the plaintiff sought consent for an extension, the suit had already abated. The only remedy at that point would have been to file a fresh suit.
The Court’s View
The judge, Dr. Ginamia Melody Ngwatu, said there was no good reason for the delay. She agreed with the defendant’s argument that the case had abated. As a result, the case was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant’s legal costs.
Why This Matters
This ruling is a reminder that if you are involved in a court case, you must follow the court’s timelines strictly. Missing a deadline — even by a few days — can cause your entire case to be thrown out, no matter how strong your claims are.
Bottom Line: Always act on time when involved in legal matters. If you're not sure what step to take next, get advice from a lawyer early enough to avoid losing your case on a technicality.
.jpg)
Comments