Wakilii

Tumusiime Festus and Others v Investment Factory (Miscellaneous Application No. 2887 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 271 · 2026 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to review or set aside interlocutory judgment and execution proceedings arising from Civil Suit No. 542 of 2022
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court dismissed an application to review or set aside an interlocutory judgment entered against a company for failure to file a defence. The court held that substituted service by newspaper publication was effective where ordinary service proved futile and the company's registered address could not locate the directors. The applicants failed to demonstrate grounds for review under Order 46 rule 1 or sufficient cause for setting aside the judgment under Order 9 rule 12.

Facts

The Respondent filed Civil Suit No. 542 of 2022 against Fookmoon Agency Limited and others seeking recovery of USD 241,630 paid for gold that was never delivered under a sale and purchase agreement dated 16 March 2018. After the Respondent's attempts at ordinary service failed, the court ordered substituted service by newspaper publication on 29 November 2022. Fookmoon Agency Limited failed to file a defence and interlocutory judgment was entered against it on 12 November 2023. The company's corporate veil was subsequently lifted in Miscellaneous Application No. 2320 of 2024, holding the directors personally liable. The directors then filed this application seeking to review or set aside the judgment, claiming they were never personally served and that the power of attorney used in the transaction was fraudulent and unregistered.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants have shown sufficient cause warranting the review or setting aside of the Judgment in Civil Suit No. 542 of 2022?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Preliminary objection that the application is moot overruled.
  • Application to review or set aside the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 542 of 2022 dismissed.
  • Application to set aside execution proceedings dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Substituted Service — Effectiveness — Order 5 rule 18
Substituted service effected under an order of court is as effectual as if it had been made on the defendant personally where the plaintiff has demonstrated that service in the ordinary way proved futile.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Grounds — Order 46 rule 1
For a court to review its judgment, decree or order under Order 46 rule 1, the applicant must prove discovery of new and important evidence not previously available despite due diligence, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Judgment — Ex Parte Judgment — Order 9 rule 12
A court may set aside an ex parte judgment under Order 9 rule 12 where there is proof that the defendant was not served with court process or where the defendant was, for sufficient cause, prevented from appearing in court.
Civil Procedure — Mootness — Definition and Application
A case is moot where a controversy no longer exists or where it presents only an abstract question that does not arise from existing facts or rights. An application is not moot where the matters it seeks to challenge remain live and capable of affecting the parties' rights.
Company Law — Service on Company — Directors' Personal Service
Where directors are not parties to a suit against a company, service of summons cannot be effected on them personally. Service must be effected on the company in accordance with the rules governing service on corporate entities.

Legislation cited (13)

  • Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.82
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.98
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 5 rule 10
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 5 rule 18
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 6 rule 28
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 9 rule 10
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 9 rule 11(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 9 rule 12
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 9 rule 27
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 15 rule 5(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 46 rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 46 rule 2
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 28

Cases cited (5)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017)
  • Mark E. Kamanzi v National Drug Authority & Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 206 of 2017)
  • Moses Oijuke & Another v Stephen Tayebwa (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1194 of 2013)
  • John Patrick Okiring v Mukholi B. Linda (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 503 of 2026)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.