Commercial Court Division

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)

HCT - 00 - CC - MA - 437 - 2013

(Arising from Civil Suit No. 231 of 2013)

ATUKWASE NICKSON :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

APPLICANT/PLAINTIF
(Suing through his lawful Attorney Arinaitwe Reuben)

VERSUS

ATTORNEY GENERAL :::::::::::::::::::::::

RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT

BEFORE: THE HON. JUSTICE DAVID WANGUTUSI

R U L I N G:

By this application, Atukwase Nickson, the Applicant seeks a default

judgment against the Attorney General, the Respondent hereof.

The dispute has its origin in Civil Suit Number 231 of 2013. In the
suit the Applicant sued for compensation, general damages for
trespass and breach of contract, special, aggravated and exemplary
damages against the Defendant/Respondent for what he claimed was
loss of business and opportunities, illegal, arbitrary, oppressive,

HCT - 00 - CC - MA- 437 - 2013

/1
 Commercial Court Division

unconstitutional and high handed acts and breach of statutory duty,

wanton destruction of property, loss and damages.

It is on record that the Applicant/Plaintiff filed the suit on the 7 th May

2013 and the summons to file a defence were issued the same day.
It is also not indispute that the Respondent/Defendant was served
with the summons on the 8th day of May 2013 a day after they were
issued.

It is also on record that the Respondent/Defendant filed a Written

Statement of Defence on the 5th June, 2013 and served a copy upon
the Applicant/Plaintiff on the 11th July, 2013. A reply to the
Defendant/Respondents. Written Statement of Defence was filed on
the 26th July, 2013.

On the 31st May 2013, the Applicant must have realized that the
Respondent had filed his Written Statement of Defence 27 days after
he was served with the plaint. The Applicant contending that the
defence was filed late, filed this application seeking a default
judgment and leave to proceed with formal proof.

In his submission Counsel for the Applicant contended that the

summons to file a defence required that the Respondent files his
defence within 15 days like any other litigant, Order VIII Rule 1(2).
That since the Respondent was served on the 8 th May 2013, he should
have filed his defence not later than the 23 rd May 2013. That the
Respondent had not sought leave to file a belated defence which
rendered the Written Statement of Defence in admissible.

HCT - 00 - CC - MA- 437 - 2013

/2
 Commercial Court Division

On Rule 11 of the Government Proceedings (Civil Procedure) Rules

SI 77-1 which gave the Attorney General 30 days in which to file a
defence, Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the rule was
unconstitutional in as much as it discriminated against other litigants
who were given only 15 days in which to file the defence.
He relied on Dr. James Rwanyarare and 9 Others Vs Attorney
General Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2002. For purposes of
convenience, Rule 11 referred to provides;

“In the case of Civil Proceedings against the Government,

Rule 1 of Order VIII of the principal Rule shall have effect
as if the words “thirty days” were substituted for the
words “fifteen days” which occur in that rule”

In the Rwanyarare case, the bone of contention arose from Section

15(2) of the Government Proceedings Act which was aimed at
preventing courts from issuing injunctions against the government.
The Section 15(2) provided;

“The Court shall not in any Civil Proceedings grant an

injunction or make any order against an officer of
Government if the effect of granting the injunction or
making the order would be to give any relief against the
Government which would not have been obtained in
proceedings against Government.”

The effect of that provision was that while injunctions would issue to
other litigants, they could not be issued against the Government.
The Court subjecting it to Article 126(1) concluded that it was anti
people and in breach of the constitution.

HCT - 00 - CC - MA- 437 - 2013

/3
 Commercial Court Division

That since the Government Proceeding Act was in existence by the

time the 1995 Constitution was promulgated, the Act had to be
construed, as provided under Article 273(1), “with such modification,
adaptations as may be necessary to bring it into conformity with the
constitution”.

In reply Counsel for the Respondent submitted that Rule 11 of the

Government Proceedings Rules were not unconstitutional and
therefore the Written Statement of Defence filed before the expiry of
30 days was in time. He distinguished this case from the
Rwanyarare and Attorney General V Osotraco Ltd, CA 32 of
2002 cases. He submitted that while in those cases, the parties
sought reliefs, it was not so in this case.

The gist of Counsel for Applicants argument is that the 1995 frowned
at anything that created inequality between litigating parties.

Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Government

Proceedings Rules, particularly Rule 11 brings forth discrimination
against non government litigants in that it allows the Attorney
General 30 days within which to file a Written Statement of Defence,
while giving the other litigants only 15 days.

Order VIII r 1(2) under which most litigants file their Written
Statement of Defence reads;

“Where a Defendant has been served with a

summons in the form provided by rule 1(1)(a) of Order V of
these Rules, he or she shall, unless some other or further

HCT - 00 - CC - MA- 437 - 2013

/4
 Commercial Court Division

order is made by the Court, file his or her defence within

15 days after service of summons.”

While the Government Proceedings (Civil Procedure) Rules in Rule 11

provides

“In the case of Civil proceedings against the Government

Rule 1 of Order VIII of the principal Rules shall have effect
as if the words “thirty days” were substituted for the
words “fifteen days” which occurs in that rule.”

On the face of it, Rule 11 of the Government Proceedings (Civil

Procedure) Rules gives more time to the litigating Government than
Rule 1(2) of Order VIII does to the other litigants. Taken at face value
it would fall in those archaic laws that place the State above the
citizens by giving it preferential treatment at their (citizens) expense
yet under the present constitution judicial power is derived from the
people, Article 126 of the Constitution.

The same Constitution provides for a fair hearing, in determining

peoples’ civil rights, Article 28(2).

It further demands for equality. The question that arises, is what

equality does it mean. Counsel for the Applicant in his contention
that Order VIII Rule 1(2) conflicts with Rule 11 of the Government
Proceedings Rules was saying exactly that the disparity in time span,
gives to the Attorney General and the ordinary citizen different
degrees of access to the court. In my view the equality referred to in

HCT - 00 - CC - MA- 437 - 2013

/5
 Commercial Court Division

the constitution goes beyond mere access, it goes to the root of

access and that is justice.

When one talks of equal opportunity, he or she simply aims to

breakdown the artificial barriers. These artificial barriers are seen
explicitly clear in reliefs sought by the parties such as the barrier in
Section 14(1)(b) (formerly 15(1)(b)) of the Government Proceedings
Act, Attorney General V Osotraco Ltd Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2002
or when seeking injunctions against the Attorney General as in Dr.
James Rwanyarare & 9 Others Constitutional Application No. 6 of
2002,

The foregoing are reliefs that maintain the status quo or even bring
litigation to an end.

In my opinion the inequality referred to in the constitution would not

as much affect things like affirmative action or as in this case
procedures that are aimed at giving equal opportunity to two
litigating parties to be heard on the same plane.

The Attorney General represents all government bodies far and near
its Headquarters. When the Attorney General is sued, he has the
duty to trace the responsible person across the country, inquire into
the circumstances in which it is alleged that the liability of
Government has arisen and as to the departments and officers of the
Government concerned.
The foregoing is not necessarily the bother individual litigants go
through. This is so because the ordinary litigant is normally himself

HCT - 00 - CC - MA- 437 - 2013

/6
 Commercial Court Division

the Defendant and has immediate knowledge of how the dispute

arose.

The Attorney General is sued on matters that have or allegedly been

committed by employees of various ministries whose cooperation is
at times not easily obtained. Imagine an accident caused by an
officer in the forces. These are mobile and deployed at very short
notice. The Attorney General gets to know about the accident after
some time when the alleged offender may be at a front line. He then
has to contact the relevant ministry, trace the offender, obtain
statements before he files a defence. Such is not necessarily the
case of an ordinary Defendant. These are not things that can be
done in 15 days, moreover with weekends in between when offices
that form addresses of alleged offenders or which are sources of their
whereabouts are closed.

In view of the above to limit the Attorney General to 15 days would

be to deny it access to justice in as much as the Written Statement of
Defence would not in most cases be on court record at the close of
the time span.

The other reason is that of public interest because the property that
the Attorney General protects belongs to the ordinary citizen who
most times is innocent of what has happened. It is therefore for the
public good that ample opportunity be given to Attorney General to
file his defences.
The disparity in the time spans is to try as much as possible to have
pleadings of both parties on the court file before hearing. It is when
every one of the parties has an “equal opportunity” of being heard

HCT - 00 - CC - MA- 437 - 2013

/7
 Commercial Court Division

that the equality that Counsel for the Applicant pressed for can be
achieved.

I would add that justice does not only lie in the law and that the law is
not necessarily justice. Justice also lies in the context in which the
parties operate. Even the constitution that speaks of equality and is
intended to promote justice, is based on context which I may call the
story behind the story. So the equality before the law that the
constitution talks of includes the opportunity for both parties to have
access not only to the courts but having reached there to justice.

Fair opportunity in legal practice includes measures taken by the

committees responsible for procedural rules like the rules committee
does and or Parliament in its legislative function. Those measures
are responsible for the disparity in things like time spans such as the
one under consideration. The disparity in time spans is however for
the promotion of fairness by enabling the Attorney General to file his
defence like the ordinary litigant can in the time afforded.

Equality in this case can be measured by the critera of equality of

outcome.
Going by the above criteria, one should be able to answer in the
positive the question – if the Attorney General was also restricted to
15 days, would he be able like other Defendants be able to put in his
Written Statement of Defence? - If the answer is in the negative, and
it is in my view in the negative, then, the need to enlarge the time
span to enable such filing so as to level the procedural path of
litigation cannot be referred to as preferential treatment.

HCT - 00 - CC - MA- 437 - 2013

/8
 Commercial Court Division

It is in my view with that in mind that the Applicant in this case

decided to file for leave to be granted a judgment in default under
Section 26(2)(b) of the Government Proceedings Act yet he would not
have gone through all that trouble if he was proceeding against an
ordinary litigant under Order IX rule 8.

For the reasons I have given herein above, I find that the disparity in
time span that the Applicant sought to be declared unconstitutional,
necessary to enable both parties equal opportunity to be heard and
administration of justice. They do not offend the constitution in its
protection of equality. I find Rule 11 of the Government Proceedings
(Civil Procedure) Rules, not discriminatory and so the defence that
was filed within 30 days, was well in time.
The application of the Applicant is therefore without foundation and is
dismissed. The costs shall abide the decision the suit.

…………………………….
David K. Wangutusi
JUDGE

Date: 05 - 11 - 2013

HCT - 00 - CC - MA- 437 - 2013

/9