Wakilii

Allan Lwanga v I & M Bank (Uganda) Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1022 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 138 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex-parte decree arising from judgment in default in Civil Suit No. 1651 of 2023
Decision
Application dismissed; ex-parte decree arising from judgment in default in Civil Suit No. 1651 of 2023 remains in force

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

Application to set aside ex-parte decree dismissed. Court held that substituted service via newspaper advertisement was effective and lawful, as it was granted by court order. Applicant's alleged application for leave to defend was filed one day late and no good cause shown for the default. Applicant failed to disclose a triable defense, making inconsistent claims that he received no loan while also stating he serviced the loan. Costs awarded to respondent.

Outcome

Application dismissed; ex-parte decree arising from judgment in default in Civil Suit No. 1651 of 2023 remains in force

Facts

The applicant obtained a salary loan of UGX 200,000,000 from Orient Bank (now I & M Bank Uganda Limited) in January 2022, repayable over 60 months. He serviced the loan until losing his employment, then engaged the bank for restructuring. On 29 April 2023, the bank disbursed UGX 136,107,930 to his account. The applicant defaulted and the bank instituted summary suit proceedings on 13 December 2023. After the applicant could not be located, the bank obtained an order for substituted service via newspaper advertisement on 15 January 2024. The advertisement appeared in The Daily Monitor on 17 January 2024. The applicant instructed lawyers to file an application for leave to defend on 30 January 2024, but this was one day late. On 1 February 2024, the court entered judgment in default in favor of the bank. The applicant only learned of the default judgment on 27 May 2024 when notified of a taxation hearing, prompting this application to set aside the decree.

Issues

  1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to warrant the setting aside of the ex-parte decree arising from judgment in default in Civil Suit No. 1651 of 2023.
  2. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to appear and defend in Civil Suit No. 1651 of 2023.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Substituted Service — Validity and Effect
Substituted service ordered by court and effected through publication in a newspaper of wide circulation is effective service under Order 5 Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules and has the same effect as personal service.
Summary Suits — Time Limits for Leave to Defend
Where a defendant in a summary suit fails to file an application for leave to appear and defend within 10 days as required by Order 36 Rule 4, the court is entitled to enter a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and a subsequent application filed even one day late is barred by law.
Setting Aside Default Decree — Good Cause Requirement
Under Order 36 Rule 11, an applicant seeking to set aside a default decree must demonstrate good cause for the default. Good cause requires a legally sufficient reason and is established on a lesser degree of proof than sufficient cause. The onus is on the applicant to show why the court should exercise its discretion in their favor.
Leave to Defend — Triable Defense Requirement
To obtain leave to defend a summary suit, the defendant must disclose a triable issue or defense worthy of being tried in court. Mere general denials of the plaintiff's case are insufficient. The defendant must clearly disclose the nature and extent of the defense in clear language. Inconsistent defenses that contradict each other do not constitute a triable issue.
Compliance with Court Orders — Order 17 Rule 4
Where a party fails to comply with court orders and timelines, the court may proceed to decide the matter notwithstanding that default under Order 17 Rule 4. A judgment pronounced under this rule is deemed to be a decision on the merits and has the same effect as a dismissal upon evidence.
Illegality — Duty of Court to Address
Where illegality is brought to the attention of the court, the court cannot sit and watch the illegality go unchecked, as it goes to the root of the matter and must be addressed first.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (15)

  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Anor [1982] UGSC 2
  • A P Bhimji v Michael Opkwo (Miscellaneous Application No. 423 of 2011)
  • Salem A. H Zaidi v F.H Humeidan [1960] EA 92
  • RM Market Links & 3 Ors v Ugafin (U) Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 334 of 2019)
  • Lydia Naiga v Ask Services Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 482 of 2020)
  • Attorney General v Wazuri Medicare Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 283 of 2023)
  • Dr. Bweyale Josephine v Jomayi Property Consultation Limited (Civil Revision No. 13 of 2020)
  • Patrick Katto v Dirk Ten Brink (Miscellaneous Application No. 791 of 2023)
  • Pinnacle Project v Business In Motion Consultants (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 362 of 2010)
  • Dr. B.B Byamugisha v Alison Kantarama (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 299 of 2019)
  • Arjun Singh v Mohindra Kumar & Others AIR 1964 SC 993
  • ABJ Engineering and Contracting Co. KSC v Align Electrical Group Company Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 122 of 2023)
  • Post Bank (U) Ltd v Abdu Ssozi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2015)
  • Miter Investments Ltd v East African Portland Cement Co. Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 336 of 2012)
  • Anglo-Cyprian Trade Agencies Ltd v Paphos Wine Industries Ltd [1951] 1 All ER 873

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Allan Lwanga v I & M Bank (Uganda) Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1022 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 138 (28 March 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.