Wakilii

Royal Transit Limited and Another v Twaha Galiwango t-a Habriz Auto Supplies (Miscellaneous Application No. 818 of 2022)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 273 · 2026 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte judgment arising from Civil Suit No. 511 of 2018
Decision
Application to set aside ex parte judgment dismissed for abuse of court process due to inordinate delay in prosecution

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 set aside an ex parte judgment on grounds of abuse of court process. The applicants sought to set aside a judgment entered in January 2022, but after the application was reinstated in July 2023 with a stay of execution, they failed to prosecute it diligently. Following vacation of the stay order in March 2025, the applicants waited a further 10 months before seeking to advance the matter. The court held that such conduct was inconsistent with that of a prudent litigant genuinely desirous of relief and amounted to abuse of process.

Facts

The respondent obtained an ex parte judgment against the applicants in Civil Suit No. 511 of 2018 on 24 January 2022. The applicants filed an application to set aside the judgment on 22 June 2022, alleging their former lawyers (M/s Muwema & Co Advocates) had neglected the matter and they were never informed of hearing dates. The application was dismissed for non-appearance on 30 November 2022, then reinstated on 7 July 2023 with a stay of execution granted. On 5 March 2025, the stay was vacated due to indeterminate delays. The applicants only sought to advance the matter again on 27 January 2026, approximately 10 months after the stay was vacated, without explanation for the delay.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants have raised sufficient grounds to warrant the setting aside of the ex parte proceedings conducted and judgment entered on 24 January 2022 against the applicants in High Court Civil Suit No. 511 of 2018.
  2. Whether the application constitutes an abuse of court process.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Abuse of Court Process — Inordinate Delay in Prosecution
A party who invokes the discretionary powers of court is under a continuing obligation to act with diligence and vigilance in the prosecution of their matter. Failure to do so undermines the administration of justice and amounts to abuse of court process.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Requirements
A preliminary objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded or which arises by clear implication out of the pleadings. It raises a pure point of law which is argued on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct and cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is extrinsic evidence.
Administrative Law — Abuse of Court Process — Definition
Abuse of court process involves the use of the process for an improper purpose or a purpose for which the process was not established. It occurs when a party employs legal process for some unlawful object not the purpose which it is intended by law to effect, constituting a perversion of it.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgments — Duty to Prosecute Promptly
Applications for setting aside ex parte judgments should be brought and prosecuted promptly without inordinate delay. A party who is genuinely interested in obtaining relief from court cannot remain silent for long periods and later seek court's intervention without a plausible explanation.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 rule 27
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rules 1 and 3
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rules 27-30
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 28

Cases cited (3)

  • Okelenge Alexander v Watulo Wekesa Joseph (Miscellaneous Application No. 285 of 2025)
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Attorney General and Another v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
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.