Management Committee of St Vianney Junior School v Mulyanti and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 790 of 2022) [2022] UGHCLD 199 (10 October 2022)

## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

# (LAND DIVISION)

# **MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.790 OF 2022**

(Arising out of Miscellaneous Application No.1728 of 2021)

# (Arising from Civil Suit No.866 of 2021)

#### MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF

ST VIANNEY JUNIOR SCHOOL:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

$\mathsf{S}$

#### **VERSUS**

### 1. MULYANTI WILLIAM

2. KIIZA WILLIAM::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

#### 15 Before: Lady Justice Alexandra Nkonge Rugadya.

#### Ruling.

# **Introduction:**

The applicant brought this motion under Section 33 of the Judicature Act cap.13, Sections 98 & 82 of the Civil Procedure Act cap.71, Order 41 rules 4 & 9, Order 46 and Order 52 rules 1 & 20 **2of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1** seeking orders that;

- 1. The ruling and orders delivered by His Worship Simon Kintu Zirintusa in Miscellaneous Application No. 1728 of 2021 on 14t October 2021 and 17<sup>th</sup> January 2022 be reviewed and set aside; - $25$ 2. That the orders of a temporary injunction of the learned Assistant Registrar be discharged and or varied; - 3. Costs of the application be provided for.

### **Grounds of the application:**

30 On 17<sup>th</sup> June, 2022, this court issued orders directing the applicant to effect service of the application, as well as the written submissions in support thereof upon the respondents by 1<sup>st</sup> July 2022 but the same were never complied with.

Counsel for the respondents by letter dated $2<sup>nd</sup>$ September, 2022, brought to the attention of court the fact that the applicants did not comply with the directives issued by this court, and that the application was never served on the respondents.


On 15<sup>th</sup> September 2022, this court issued another directive ordering the applicant to effect service on the respondents by 29<sup>th</sup> September, 2022 but the applicants also ignored/neglected to comply with the same.

Order 49 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 stipulates that all other court processes must be served in a manner provided for service of summons. Such processes include a Notice of Motion.

According to **Order 5 rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules (supra),** proof of service of summons is by an affidavit of service, stating the time when, the manner in which summons was served, and the name, and address of the person, if any, identifying the person served and witnessing the delivery of summons.

Evidence of service of any court documents is by way of filing an affidavit of service and there appears to be none on the court file, to indicate the exact date of service of the application upon the respondents.

In the absence of any evidence that the application was served onto the respondents within the prescribed time, it is correct to state that the applicant did not comply with the orders of this court.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed, with costs, for want of proper service.

(labo) 15

$\mathsf{S}$

$10$

Alexandra Nkonge Rugadya Judge 10<sup>th</sup> October, 2022.