Wakilii

Alert Guard & Security Systems Ltd v Touch Fm Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 322 of 2015)

High Court · [2016] UGCOMMC 19 · 2016 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte judgment and decree arising from Civil Suit No. 329 of 2014
Decision
Application to set aside judgment and decree dismissed

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 service of summons on a corporation is effective when delivered at the registered office to a person willing to accept service, even if not to a director, secretary, or principal officer personally. The summons were received, stamped, and signed at the applicant's place of business, constituting effective service under Order 29 rule 2(b) CPR and section 274(1) Companies Act. The correction of mathematical errors in the judgment under section 99 CPA did not require a formal review application. The application to set aside the ex parte judgment was dismissed.

Outcome

Application to set aside judgment and decree dismissed

Facts

The applicant company sought to set aside an ex parte judgment and decree entered in Civil Suit No. 329 of 2014. The applicant claimed summons were not effectively served because they were allegedly left with a receptionist rather than a principal officer. The affidavit of service indicated that a process server attended the applicant's registered office on Yusuf Lule Road, where the Company Secretary called the Director of Legal Affairs who received, stamped, and signed the summons but refused to disclose his name. The applicant's Company Secretary denied receiving service. The applicant also challenged the judgment on grounds that the decree was at variance with the judgment after the respondent requested correction of mathematical figures, and claimed to have a good defence, though no proposed defence was attached.

Issues

  1. Whether the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 329 of 2014 should be set aside.
  2. Whether the summons were effectively served on the applicant company.
  3. Whether the applicant has a good defence to the suit.
  4. Whether the decree extracted was at variance with the judgment.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Service on Corporations — Effective Service at Registered Office
Under Order 29 rule 2(b) CPR and section 274(1) Companies Act, service of summons at the registered office of a company by delivery to a person at such address willing to accept service is effective service, even in the absence of a director, secretary, or senior officer, provided the company is made aware of the suit against it.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Affidavit of Service — Sufficiency of Contents
Failure to state the name and address of the person who identified a company representative to a process server is not fatal to an affidavit of service where Order 5 rules 14 and 16 CPR are otherwise complied with, the circumstances of service are stated, the company address is stated, and the affidavit discloses that the person served refused to disclose their name.
Civil Procedure — Judgments and Decrees — Correction of Clerical and Mathematical Errors
Section 99 CPA empowers the court to correct clerical or mathematical mistakes in judgments, decrees, or orders arising from accidental slip or omission, either on its own motion or on application of any party, to give effect to the court's intention at the time of giving judgment, and the form of such application need not be prescribed where substantive justice is served.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgments — Requirement to Show Good Defence
An applicant seeking to set aside an ex parte judgment under Order 9 rule 12 CPR on grounds of having a good defence must substantiate the claim by disclosing the nature of the defence or attaching a proposed defence; a mere assertion that triable issues exist is insufficient.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (11)

  • Kampala City Council v Apollo Hotel Corporation [1985] HCB 77
  • Geoffrey Gatete and Another v William Kyobe (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
  • Crane Bank v Kabuye Victoria (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 719 of 2007)
  • Bandali Jaffer & Others v Yefusa Werage Ssegane [1972] 2 ULR
  • M.B. Auto Mobiles v Kampala Bus Service [1966] EA 480
  • Hannington Wassa Vs Maria Ochola & 2 Others
  • The Cooperative Bank (In Liquidation) v Amos Mugisha (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 549 of 2009)
  • Remco Ltd v Mistry Jadva Parbat & Co. Ltd and Others [2002] 1 EA 233
  • Evans v Bartlam [1937] AC 473
  • Emiru Angose v Jas Projects Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 429 of 2005)
  • Henry Kawalya v J.Kinyakwanzi [1975] HCB 372

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Alert Guard & Security Systems Ltd v Touch Fm Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 322 of 2015) [2016] UGCommC 19 (3 March 2016)
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.