Wakilii

ABC Impex Africa (U) Ltd v Haruna Enterprises (Civil Suit No. 899 of 2017)

High Court · [2021] UGCOMMC 110 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by plaintiff to substitute ex parte hearing order with Order 17 rule 4 procedure
Decision
Application dismissed; plaintiff to proceed ex parte under existing order

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 where a defendant in a summary suit is granted leave to appear and defend, the suit becomes one under ordinary plaint. Where the defendant subsequently fails to appear for hearing after filing a defence, the proper procedure is for the plaintiff to proceed ex parte under Order 9 rule 20, not under Order 17 rule 4. The application to substitute the ex parte order with Order 17 rule 4 procedure was dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed; plaintiff to proceed ex parte under existing order

Facts

The plaintiff sued the defendant by way of summary suit in Civil Suit No. 899 of 2017. The defendant was granted leave to appear and defend on 21 June 2018 and ordered to file a written statement of defence within fifteen days. The defendant failed to file the defence by the due date of 17 October 2018. The defendant subsequently obtained an extension of time by consent and filed the defence on 28 November 2019. At a hearing on 26 February 2020, the plaintiff obtained leave to proceed ex parte under Order 9 rule 20, with hearing set for 7 July 2020. On the hearing date, the plaintiff's counsel appeared and applied to substitute the ex parte order with the procedure under Order 17 rule 4.

Issues

  1. Whether this suit satisfies conditions to be decided under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Ex parte order granted on 26 February 2020 for plaintiff to proceed ex parte is maintained.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Effect of Grant of Leave to Defend
Where a defendant in a summary suit is granted leave to appear and defend, the suit becomes one under ordinary plaint and the ordinary civil procedure rules apply thereafter.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Proceedings — Defendant's Failure to Appear for Hearing
Where a defendant fails to appear when the suit is called on for hearing and the court is satisfied that the summons or notice of hearing was duly served, the proper procedure is for the court to proceed ex parte under Order 9 rule 20(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Order 17 Rule 4 — Applicability
Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which allows the court to proceed to decide a suit immediately where a party fails to produce evidence or cause attendance of witnesses, does not apply where the defendant has failed to appear for hearing after filing a defence; the appropriate procedure in such circumstances is ex parte hearing under Order 9 rule 20.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (1)

  • Carlton Douglas Kasirye v Sheena Ahumuza Baqiene (HCMA No. 150 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

ABC Impex Africa (U) Ltd v Haruna Enterprises (Civil Suit No. 899 of 2017) [2021] UGCommC 110 (10 February 2021)
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.