Wakilii

Abbas Mukasa Kaawaase v Safina Nalweyiso Mukasa (Miscellaneous Application No. 3232 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 370 · 2024 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 in Civil Suit No. 419 of 2016
Decision
Application to set aside ex parte 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

Held that the applicant failed to establish sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte judgment. The applicant was aware of proceedings but did not follow up or enter appearance for almost eight years after filing his defence. A litigant must show diligence and cannot rely solely on alleged non-notification by his lawyers. The application was dismissed for failing to disclose sufficient cause.

Outcome

Application to set aside ex parte judgment dismissed

Facts

The applicant was sued jointly with other defendants in Civil Suit No. 419 of 2016. He filed a written statement of defence on 19 August 2016 through his lawyers M/s Lubega & Co. Advocates. The applicant did not appear at subsequent hearings. Ex parte judgment was entered against him on 29 March 2023 and decree issued on 25 May 2023. The applicant only learned of the judgment on 8 October 2023 when he received a WhatsApp message about a taxation hearing scheduled for 16 October 2023. He then instructed new lawyers M/s M. A. Kajubi & Co. Advocates who filed this application to set aside the ex parte judgment. The applicant claimed he was never notified of hearing dates by either his former lawyers or the court. The respondent countered that service was effected through the applicant's lawyers of record who were duly served with all court process.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing.
  2. Whether the ex parte judgment and decree should be set aside.
  3. Whether taxation proceedings should be stayed pending determination of the application.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Miscellaneous Application No. 452 of 2024 and Miscellaneous Application No. 454 of 2024 seeking orders for stay of execution are overtaken by events.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment — Sufficient Cause — Duty of Litigant to Follow Up on Case
An applicant seeking to set aside an ex parte judgment under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules must prove that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing. A litigant who is aware of proceedings against him but fails to enter appearance or follow up on the case for almost eight years after filing his defence does not establish sufficient cause. It is not only the duty of the advocate to show up in court but also the duty of the litigant, who must be vigilant and follow up on his case.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment — Test for Sufficient Cause — Diligence and Promptness
What amounts to sufficient cause under Order 9 rule 27 has not been defined but from decided cases includes factors such as whether the application has been brought promptly, the absence of any valid explanation for delay, and lack of diligence on the part of the applicant. The main test for reinstatement is whether the applicant honestly intended to attend the hearing and did his best to do so.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (5)

  • Mumello v Bank of Tanzania (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2002)
  • Tanga Cement Company Limited v Jumanne D. Masangwa and Amos A. Mwalwanda (Civil Application No. 6 of 2001)
  • Nakiridde v Hotel International (1987) HCB 85
  • Eternal Church of God v Kasoke (Miscellaneous Application No. 001 of 2016)
  • National Insurance Corporation v Mugenyi and Company Advocates [1987] HCB 28

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Abbas_Mukasa_Kaawaase_v_Safina_Nalweyiso_Mukasa_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._3232_of_2023)_[2024]_UGHCLD_370_(3_April_2024)
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.