Wakilii

Airtel Uganda Ltd & Anor v Hajji Musa (MISC. APPLICATION NO. 69 OF 20171)

High Court · [2017] UGHCCD 151 · 2017 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte proceedings in land dispute
Decision
Ex parte proceedings set aside; main suit to be heard inter-parties

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 where a land dispute of public importance involving telecommunications infrastructure remains unconcluded despite an ex parte order, and no final judgment has been entered, the court has discretion under Civil Procedure Act s.98 and Judicature Act s.33 to set aside the ex parte proceedings and allow the matter to proceed inter-parties to ensure all parties are heard on the merits.

Outcome

Ex parte proceedings set aside; main suit to be heard inter-parties

Facts

Airtel Uganda Ltd and Bageine & Co. Advocates filed an application to set aside ex parte proceedings in a land dispute. The applicants had failed to attend court hearings over several occasions, leading the court to order the matter to proceed ex parte. The applicants explained that their counsel who had conduct of the case left the firm to pursue further studies, causing the non-attendance. Airtel had established telecommunications infrastructure (a booster mast) on the disputed land. The ex parte proceedings had not been concluded, with no visit to the locus in quo and no final judgment entered. The respondent opposed the application, arguing the applicants were guilty of dilatory conduct and inordinate delay, as the application was filed two years after the ex parte order and the suit itself was five years old.

Issues

  1. Whether the ex parte proceedings should be set aside and the matter heard inter-parties.
  2. Whether the applicants showed sufficient cause for their non-attendance at court.
  3. Whether the interests of justice require the matter to be heard on its merits.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Ex parte proceedings set aside.
  • Matter to proceed inter-parties.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Proceedings — Setting Aside — Matters of Public Importance
Where a land dispute involves telecommunications infrastructure of public importance and ex parte proceedings have not been concluded with no final judgment entered, the court has discretion under Civil Procedure Act s.98 and Judicature Act s.33 to set aside the ex parte order and direct that the matter be heard inter-parties on its merits.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion — Inordinate Delay
Where an application to set aside ex parte proceedings is granted but was filed with inordinate delay, the court may exercise its discretion to award costs of the application to the respondent despite the applicant's success on the merits.

Legislation cited (2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Airtel Uganda Ltd & Anor Vs Hajji Musa (MISC. APPLICATION NO. 69 OF 20171) [2017] UGHCCD 151 (3 August 2017)
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.