POPULAR: Mukasa during campaigns
IT HAS started well with the newly elected Rubaga South Constituency legislator Aloysius Mukasa after the Petitioner in Election Petition No. 7 Eugenia Nassolo lost an Application on Substituted Service.
High Court sitting at Tweed Towers on Thursday ruled against an Application filed by Nassolo’s lawyers of Ms. Alaka & Co. Advocates to serve the 1st Respondent Aloysius Mukasa through Daily Monitor News Paper.
At court, counsel Fred Kato of Alaka & Co. Advocates told Justice Esther Nambayo how they have traced for Mukasa and failed to get him in the mandated 10 days.
“We therefore ask this court to allow us serve him through substituted service.” Counsel for the Petitioner told court.
Read Also: ‘NASSOLO PETITION IS INCOMPETENT & BASED ON POLITICAL GAMES DISMISS IT WITH COSTS”- NUP MP-ELECT MUKASA’S LAWYERS ASK COURT
Substituted service is when the process server is able to serve you indirectly by giving the documents to another court-approved friend or family member, publicly publishing the process, sending it via snail mail, or dropping it off at your workplace.
Whatever the governing entity is, this process is conducted with strict requirements to ensure that there is no possible way that the service fails. The following requirements highlight a number of these standards.
Since this service method is less desirable than direct service, many courts require that the process server provides evidence that the party is unreachable and that an effort to contact the individual directly has failed. Once it has been established that substituted service is necessary, the above mentioned options that the court in question supports will be considered per the defendant’s circumstances.
Counsel Ssemuyaba of Ssemuyaba, Iga & Co. Advocates who represents Hon. Aloysius Mukasa strongly rejected Counsel Kato’s submission saying it’s false.
“Your Worship, my learned friend is telling lies to this Honourable Court. My client has never left the country, his home or his place of work. And he is even present in this court. How can you say that he is nowhere to be seen so you are applying for substituted service?” Asked Counsel Ssemuyaba.
Hon. Mukasa humbly took on his feet to confirm his presence.
This shocked Nassolo’s lawyer and he just looked in disbelief.
He thought the application would be listened to exparte so that court easily grants the Application and help them ammend the Petition to add more affidavits since the original petition has only one affidavit from Nassolo yet at the sametime she is the Petitioner.
However, the presence of Mukasa and his lawyer spoiled Nassolo’s party.
Counsel Ssemuyaba told Justice Esther Nambayo that his client was alerted by his lawyers of an election petition No. 7 filed against him at the Registrar of the High Court by Nassolo Eugenia.
“I am here to tell this Honourable Court that the 1st Respondent has already filed in his response and served both the registra of the High Court and Ms Alaka & Co. Advocates who reprent the Petitioner. Let this go on court’s record that they received the 1st respondent’s response.” Mukasa’s lawyer told court.
Counsel Ssemuyaba presented to court proof that Nassolo lawyers already acknowleged recieving the response from Hon. Aloysius Mukasa.
Suprisingly, Nassolo’s lawyer confirmed ever receiving Mukasa’s defence.
Mukasa’s lawyer told court that his client is already aware of the election petition no. 7 and ready to proceed.
In her wise ruling, Justice Esther Nambayo agreed with the lawyers of Mukasa that the substituted service was not necessally since the 1st respondent was available and had already filed in answers to the petition. Application was dismissed.
What now remains, is the judge allocation of the Petition to know which judge will handle it.
For comments/views email us: email@example.com