Wakilii

Adiit Mark Raymond v Aisha Daisy Buruku (Miscellaneous Application No. 1533 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 437 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside default judgment entered in Civil Suit No. 1325 of 2024
Decision
Default judgment set aside; applicant granted leave to file written statement of defence out of time

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 set aside a default judgment where substituted service by newspaper advertisement failed to comply with Order 5 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires that advertised summons be accompanied by a copy of the plaint and summary of evidence. The court found service ineffective where the respondent dealt with a third party rather than the applicant directly, and the WhatsApp number used for service belonged to a different person who denied being the applicant.

Outcome

Default judgment set aside; applicant granted leave to file written statement of defence out of time

Facts

On 31 October 2024, the respondent sued the applicant for breach of a land sale contract dated 13 May 2022. The applicant learned of the suit on 11 June 2025 upon receiving a court order for substituted service. On 12 June 2025, default judgment was entered against the applicant for failure to file a defence. The applicant claimed he was never properly served, that the WhatsApp number used (0774760832) belonged to Allan Humphreys Okiria who denied being the applicant, and that his actual number was 0752594330. The respondent admitted dealing with George Okunga rather than the applicant directly, but maintained that substituted service was effected by newspaper publication on 26 April 2025, pinning on the court notice board, and WhatsApp service. The applicant contended the advertised summons lacked accompanying documents required by Order 5 rule 2.

Issues

  1. Whether the application raises sufficient grounds for setting aside the default judgment in Civil Suit No. 1325 of 2024?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The default judgment in Civil Suit No. 1325 of 2024 entered against the Applicant is hereby set aside.
  • The Applicant is ordered to file his Written Statement of Defence within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Ruling.
  • The Respondent shall file a reply to the Written Statement of Defence within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of the Written Statement of Defence.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Substituted Service — Requirements for Newspaper Advertisement
Where substituted service is effected by newspaper advertisement, Order 5 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires that the advertised summons be accompanied by a copy of the plaint, a brief summary of the evidence to be adduced, a list of witnesses, a list of documents and a list of authorities. It is not sufficient to advertise only the summons and direct the defendant to access documents on a website.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Default Judgment — Ineffective Service
A default judgment may be set aside where substituted service, though formally compliant with a court order, was not effective in bringing notice of the suit to the defendant, particularly where the plaintiff dealt with a third party rather than the defendant and used contact details belonging to a different person.
Civil Procedure — Substituted Service — Effectiveness versus Validity
While substituted service under Order 5 rule 18(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules is as effectual as personal service if made pursuant to a court order, the court retains discretion under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to set aside a default judgment in the interests of justice where service, though valid, was not effective in achieving its purpose.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (2)

  • Jessy Technical Services Ltd & Another v Ajay Industrial Corporation Ltd & Another (HCMA No. 617 of 2012)
  • Valery Alia v Alionzi John (HCCS No. 157 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Adiit Mark Raymond v Aisha Daisy Buruku (Miscellaneous Application No. 1533 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 437 (28 November 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.