Wakilii

Ahmed Hussein v Ssebbira Saddam Alias Dr. Saddam Rashid Lukwago (Miscellaneous Application 261 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 136 · 2026 Application Dismissed 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. 261 of 2022
Decision
Application dismissed; default judgment remains enforceable

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 was effectively served through substituted service via Daily Monitor newspaper after multiple failed attempts at personal service, and the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for setting aside the default judgment. Having a meritorious defence does not constitute sufficient cause. The application was dismissed and the default judgment remained valid and enforceable.

Outcome

Application dismissed; default judgment remains enforceable

Facts

The respondent sued the applicant in Civil Suit No. 261 of 2022 for recovery of UGX 67,000,000 arising from a memorandum of agreement concerning unauthorized sale of school property and failure to construct a school kitchen. After multiple failed attempts at personal service, including planned meetings that the applicant did not attend and WhatsApp delivery, the court ordered substituted service through Daily Monitor newspaper on 26 January 2023. The applicant's guarantor was also contacted by telephone. Default judgment was entered on 24 February 2023. The applicant then filed this application seeking to set aside the default judgment, claiming he learned of the suit after the time to apply for leave to defend had expired and asserting he had a meritorious defence.

Issues

  1. Whether it is just to set aside the default judgement entered in Civil Suit No 261 of 2022

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Default judgment entered in Civil Suit No. 261 of 2022 remains valid and enforceable.
  • Applicant denied leave to appear and defend the suit.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Default Judgment — Requirements under Order 36 Rule 11
A default judgment entered under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules may be set aside if the court is satisfied that service of summons was not effective or for any other good cause, which must be recorded.
Civil Procedure — Substituted Service — Validity Where Personal Service Frustrated
Where a defendant deliberately avoids personal service through multiple failed meetings and does not respond to WhatsApp delivery of court documents, substituted service through newspaper publication constitutes effective service under Order 5 Rule 18(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Sufficient Cause — Meritorious Defence Insufficient Alone
Having a plausible, meritorious and valid defence does not constitute sufficient cause for setting aside a default judgment. Sufficient cause refers to a factor beyond the control of a litigant or arising from an event that could not have been reasonably foreseen.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ahmed Hussein v Ssebbira Saddam Alias Dr. Saddam Rashid Lukwago (Miscellaneous Application 261 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 136 (13 March 2026)
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.