“When You Institute a Suit, You Don’t Go to Sleep: High Court Reinforces Mandatory Compliance with Procedural Rules”

Waboga David
Nov 22
3 min read

FACTS

The Plaintiff, Grace Tendo Nakalembe, filed a suit seeking declarations of ownership over two plots of land in Kyadondo Block 273 Plot 22017 (0.0430 Ha) and Kyadondo Block 273 Plot 23175 (0.0440 Ha)

She also sought:

A declaration that the Defendant’s actions constituted trespass.
A permanent injunction.General damages, interest, and costs.

The plaint was filed on 21 December 2024 through ECCMIS.

The Defendant filed a Written Statement of Defence (WSD) on 24 January 2025.

The Plaintiff did not file a reply nor take out Summons for Directions within the statutory timeframe.

ISSUES

The Court addressed one central procedural issue:

Whether the Plaintiff complied with the mandatory requirement to take out Summons for Directions within 28 days after the last pleading, as required under Order 11A Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

Court’s Findings

The Court held that compliance with Order 11A of the Civil Procedure Rules is mandatory, relying on established authority.

On the mandatory nature of the rule

“The use of the word ‘shall’ in the aforementioned provision in the Civil Procedure Rules connotes that compliance to it is mandatory as was held by Keitirima J in Abdu Kiwanuka Yiga Vs. Abubaker Kaddu Kiberu, Misc Application No. 386 of 2022 (arising from HCCS No. 512 of 2019).”

On the consequence of non-compliance

“The 28 days within which the Plaintiff was supposed to take out summons for directions have since elapsed. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not comply with the mandatory provision of Order 11A, Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.”

Operative order:

“The suit hereby abated under Order 11A, Rule 1(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules due to failure by the Plaintiff to take out Summons for directions within 28 days from the date of filing of the Written Statement of Defence as required under Order 11A, Rule 1(2) of the aforementioned Rules.”

Holding

Civil Suit No. 1215 of 2024 abated by operation of law.
No order as to costs.

Key Takeaways & Practical Implications

1. Strict 28-day deadline

In suits commenced by plaint under the fast-track procedure, the Plaintiff must apply for Summons for Directions within 28 days of the last reply or rejoinder—or, where none is filed, within 28 days of the Written Statement of Defence. This period is computed strictly.

2. No discretion to condone

The use of the word “shall” in Order 11A Rule 1(6) makes abatement automatic upon expiry of the 28 days. Courts have consistently held that there is no residual discretion to extend time once abatement has occurred (see also Nakamatte v Mukasa and several High Court decisions).

3. Abatement is fatal—but not a determination on the merits

Abatement does not resolve the Plaintiff’s ownership or trespass claims. The suit is simply struck off the register. The Plaintiff may file a fresh suit (subject to limitation) or, in limited cases, apply for reinstatement if the default is rectified before the Court formally pronounces abatement.

4. ECCMIS risks and judicial vigilance

Courts increasingly monitor ECCMIS dockets and raise abatement proprio motu, sometimes months after the procedural default. Counsel must diarise the 28-day window immediately upon service or uploading of the defence.

5. Best-practice reminders

Diarise the 28-day period as soon as the WSD is served or uploaded.
If settlement discussions or other reasons justify delay, file a consent or application for enlargement of time before the 28 days lapse.
Where no reply is necessary, treat the WSD upload date on ECCMIS as the starting point.

Read the full case