Wakilii

A.K. Transporters Limited v Mulani Moosa (Miscellaneous Application No. 1175 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 94 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte judgment and decree arising from HCCS No. 38 of 2001
Decision
Application dismissed as incompetent

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

Held that where a court proceeds under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules to determine a matter after one party fails to adduce evidence, the resultant decision is a judgment and decree which cannot be set aside by the same court. The only remedy available to an aggrieved party is to appeal against the judgment and decree. An application to set aside such a judgment under Order 9 rules 22 or 27 is incompetent.

Outcome

Application dismissed as incompetent

Facts

The applicant company was defendant in HCCS No. 38 of 2001, a case arising from a 1998 accident. The applicant filed a defence through M/s Mayanja & Associates. The court directed the defendant to file witness statements by January 2021, with a final deadline of March 2021. Only one witness statement was filed. When the matter came up for hearing in May 2022, the defendant and counsel were absent without explanation despite service of hearing notice. The court proceeded under Order 17 rule 4 CPR to close the defence case without hearing evidence, and determined the matter on the merits based on the plaintiff's evidence alone. The applicant then brought this application to set aside the ex parte judgment, claiming their advocate had fallen gravely ill and failed to communicate with the company or attend court.

Issues

  1. Whether the court can set aside a judgment and decree entered under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the application to set aside the ex parte judgment is competent before the court.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Order 17 Rule 4 — Nature of Resultant Decision — Judgment and Decree
Where a court proceeds under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules to determine a matter after a party fails to produce evidence or cause attendance of witnesses, the resultant decision is a judgment and decree, not an ex parte order.
Civil Procedure — Order 17 Rule 4 — Remedy Against Decision — Appeal Not Setting Aside
A judgment and decree entered under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules cannot be set aside by the same court under Order 9 rules 22 or 27. The only remedy available to an aggrieved party is to appeal against the judgment and decree.
Civil Procedure — Competence of Application — Wrong Remedy Invoked
An application to set aside a judgment entered under Order 17 rule 4 by invoking Order 9 rules 22 or 27 is incompetent before the court. This is a matter of great substance which cannot be treated as a technical procedural aspect, and the principle of substantive justice cannot be invoked to save such an application.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (3)

  • Saggu v Roadmaster Cycle (U) Ltd [2002] E.A 258
  • Captain Gerald Willie Okweyo & Another v Okedeke Ismail & Another (HCMA No. 217 of 2012)
  • Pentecostal Assemblies of God Lira Limited v Pentecostal Assemblies of God Limited & Another (HCMA No. 014 of 2018)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

A.K. Transporters Limited v Mulani Moosa (Miscellaneous Application No. 1175 of 2023) [2025] UGHCCD 94 (1 July 2025)
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.