Wakilii

A1 Car Hire Services Ltd v James Nyanzi and Another (Miscellaneous Application 1095 of 2020)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 103 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte judgment arising from civil suit
Decision
Application to set aside judgment dismissed

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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.

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 court held that the judgment sought to be set aside was not an ex parte judgment within the meaning of Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant had been duly served, filed a defence, participated in scheduling, gave evidence, and was cross-examined. His failure to file written submissions by the deadline did not render the judgment ex parte. The application was wrongly brought under Order 36 rule 3(1) which governs summary procedure. The court dismissed the application with costs.

Outcome

Application to set aside judgment dismissed

Facts

A1 Car Hire Services Ltd filed a suit in 2011 against James Nyanzi and Chris Kakembo claiming return of a motor vehicle valued at UGX 24,840,000 allegedly obtained through fraud and conversion. Both defendants filed written statements of defence. The matter proceeded through multiple judges over ten years. On 3 February 2020, the trial judge directed parties to file written submissions with the defendants' deadline being 2 March 2020. The plaintiff filed in time but Kakembo did not. Judgment was delivered on 18 May 2020. Kakembo filed his submissions on 19 August 2020, three months after judgment. On 4 December 2020, Kakembo applied to set aside the judgment claiming it was ex parte and that he only discovered it had been delivered on 3 September 2020 during the COVID-19 lockdown.

Issues

  1. Whether the application and supporting affidavit are incurably defective and constitute an abuse of court process.
  2. Whether the judgment in HCCS No. 0077 of 2017 was an ex parte judgment within the meaning of Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  3. Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for setting aside the judgment under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to A1 Car Hire Services Ltd.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Judgments — Setting Aside — Requirements under Order 9 Rule 27
A judgment is not an ex parte judgment within the meaning of Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules where the defendant was duly served with summons, filed a written statement of defence, participated in scheduling, gave evidence, and was cross-examined, even if the defendant failed to file written submissions as directed by the court.
Civil Procedure — Written Submissions — Status and Effect
Written submissions in the High Court are a courtesy and not a right or of mandate. Once pleadings are closed and evidence given, the court can proceed to determine the matter on the basis of the pleadings and evidence with or without the submissions of the parties, and this would in no way affect or prejudice the case of the party that fails to submit.
Civil Procedure — Court Orders — Compliance — Order 17 Rule 4
Under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where time has been granted to any party to produce evidence or perform any other act necessary for the further progress of the suit but they fail to do so within that time, the court is mandated to proceed to decide the suit immediately.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Misnomer and Typographical Errors
A misspelling of a party's name or transposition of parties' roles in the caption of an application does not render the party non-existent or the application incompetent where the correct party is identifiable from the context, having regard to Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution which prohibits undue technicalities.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (2)

  • Dr. Peter Musoke Gukina v Speke Hotel and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 239 of 2019)
  • Baluku Zaverio and Another v Mukanirwa Joel & 10 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 25 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

A1 Car Hire Services Ltd v James Nyanzi and Another (Miscellaneous Application 1095 of 2020) [2025] UGHCCD 103 (31 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.