Wakilii

Akankwasa Fidelis and Asiimwe Agnes v Leo's Investment Limited (Miscellaneous Application No 019 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 816 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte order arising from civil suit for debt recovery
Decision
Ex parte judgment set aside on terms; main suit to proceed after compliance with deposit requirements

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 granted the application to set aside the ex parte judgment, finding that illness may constitute sufficient cause under Order 9 Rules 12 and 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court exercised its discretion to do justice between the parties, noting triable issues existed regarding the debt claim. The order was granted on terms requiring the applicants to deposit half the claimed sum and security for costs within 30 days, with the suit to proceed ex parte if the deposits were not made.

Outcome

Ex parte judgment set aside on terms; main suit to proceed after compliance with deposit requirements

Facts

The applicants were defendants in Civil Suit No. 010 of 2024 brought by the respondent for recovery of a debt of UGX 49,750,000 plus interest at 15% per month. On April 15, 2025, the court granted an ex parte order allowing the respondent to proceed against the applicants in their absence. The first applicant claimed he developed Mpox symptoms and obtained sick leave from the Principal Medical Officer, Kabale, on April 7, 2025. He wrote to the court on April 10, 2025, requesting an adjournment due to illness. The second applicant, his wife, was caring for him in isolation. The respondent opposed the application, alleging the applicants were habitual absentees and that the medical records were unverified photocopies. The respondent had filed a loan agreement and a dishonoured cheque for UGX 49,750,000 as evidence of the debt.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is meritorious of a grant of an order setting aside the ex parte judgment under Order 9 Rules 12 and 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the applicants demonstrated sufficient cause for their failure to appear when the suit was called for hearing.

Orders

  • Application to set aside ex parte judgment granted.
  • Applicants to deposit UGX 24,875,000 (one half of the sum claimed) in court within 30 days from the date of this order.
  • Applicants to deposit UGX 5,000,000 as security for costs within 30 days from the date of this order.
  • Hearing of the main suit to resume immediately after deposit of the sums ordered.
  • In default of deposit by the applicants, the suit will proceed and conclude ex parte.
  • Costs of the application to abide in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders — Sufficient Cause — Illness of Party
Illness of a party may constitute sufficient cause for failure to appear in court and justify setting aside an ex parte order under Order 9 Rules 12 and 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Judicial Discretion — Terms for Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders
The court has wide discretion under Order 9 Rules 12 and 27 to set aside ex parte judgments on such terms as may be just, and the main concern of the court is to do justice to the parties without imposing conditions that fetter this discretion.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders — Payment into Court as Condition
Where triable issues exist and there is prima facie evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim, the court may set aside an ex parte judgment on terms requiring the defendant to deposit a portion of the claimed sum and security for costs into court as a condition for proceeding with the defence.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (3)

  • Captain Philip Ongom v Catherine Nyero Owota (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2001)
  • Kiyimba Eddie Kalema Lwembaawo v Dooba Enterprises (Miscellaneous Application No. 89 of 2012)
  • Dhillon and Another v Dhillon [2006] 1 EA 66

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Akankwasa Fidelis and Asiimwe Agnes v Leo's Investment Limited (Miscellaneous Application No 019 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 816 (2 September 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.