Wakilii

Asasira v Housing Finance Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 660 of 2019)

High Court · [2023] UGCOMMC 2 · 2023 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside default judgment and for leave to appear and defend arising from Civil Suit No. 114 of 2019
Decision
Default judgment set aside; applicant granted conditional leave to appear and defend upon deposit of UGX 45,000,000 within 60 days

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 substituted service was resorted to prematurely without exhausting attempts at personal service, including service at the defendant's known residence, rendering the service ineffective. Default judgment set aside. However, conditional leave to appear and defend granted as the court doubted the bona fides of the proposed defence where the applicant, informed that funds had been credited to her UK bank account, failed to verify this through ordinary banking channels and claimed she could only confirm it by travelling to the UK. Applicant ordered to deposit UGX 45,000,000 into court as a condition for filing her defence.

Outcome

Default judgment set aside; applicant granted conditional leave to appear and defend upon deposit of UGX 45,000,000 within 60 days

Facts

The respondent bank sued the applicant in Civil Suit No. 114 of 2019 claiming GBP 20,000 (approximately UGX 95,463,997) allegedly credited to the applicant's UK bank account by mistake. Default judgment was entered on 10 July 2019 after attempts to serve the applicant at her workplace (Premier Diaries Limited) were unsuccessful. The respondent obtained an order for substituted service by publication in the Daily Monitor newspaper. The applicant contended she had ceased working at Premier Diaries in 2018, that the respondent knew her home address at Bugolobi Flats but did not attempt service there, and that she was in the village in Kiruhura District for a month and did not see the newspaper publication. She claimed the respondent had informed her of the alleged mistaken deposit and she had requested assistance to travel to the UK to verify the claim but was refused. The respondent argued that multiple attempts at service had been made and that the applicant had not shown a bona fide defence.

Issues

  1. Whether the default judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 114 of 2019 should be set aside on grounds that service of summons was not effective.
  2. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to appear and defend the suit.

Orders

  • The default judgment and decree of 10th July 2019 by the Deputy Registrar is set aside.
  • The Applicant is granted conditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 114 of 2019 upon deposit into court the sum of UGX 45,000,000 within sixty (60) days from the date of this Ruling.
  • Upon satisfying the condition above, the Applicant shall file her Written Statement of Defence within 15 days from the date of deposit.
  • If upon expiry of sixty days the Applicant has not satisfied the condition, the order setting aside the decree shall lapse and the Respondent shall be at liberty to take out execution process.
  • Where a defence is filed, costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the main suit. Where no defence is filed, costs shall be met by the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Service of Process — Substituted Service — Requirement to Exhaust Personal Service
Before resorting to substituted service under Order 5 rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules, there must be evidence that all necessary steps and attempts have been taken to effect personal service, including service at the defendant's known place of residence. Substituted service resorted to prematurely affects the effectiveness of service and renders it ineffectual.
Service of Process — Effective Service — Meaning and Effect
Effective service means service that produces the desired result of making the defendant aware of the suit so that he or she has an opportunity to respond. Although substituted service may be deemed good service, if it is shown that the service did not lead to the defendant becoming aware of the summons, the service is not effective and a default judgment entered thereafter may be set aside.
Setting Aside Default Judgment — Grounds — Ineffective Service
Under Order 36 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may set aside a default decree if satisfied that service of summons was not effective. Where substituted service was resorted to prematurely without exhausting attempts at personal service at the defendant's known residence, the service is ineffective and the defendant is entitled to have the default judgment set aside.
Leave to Appear and Defend — Bona Fide Defence — Conditional Leave
Where the court is in doubt whether the proposed defence is being made in good faith, the court may grant conditional leave to appear and defend by ordering the defendant to deposit money in court before leave is granted. A defendant who, informed that money was credited to her bank account abroad, claims she could only verify this by travelling to that country rather than through ordinary banking communication, raises doubts as to the bona fides of her defence.
Time for Service — Extension of Time — Effect of Non-Compliance
Where timelines for service provided under the law are mandatory and strict, it is not open to a party to effect late service whatever the justification. The party must seek extension of time before effecting service, at which occasion they may present their justification for the delay. Late service without prior extension invalidates the process.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (7)

  • Kanyabwera v Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
  • Gatete v Kyobe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
  • Oburu & Anor v Equity Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 809 of 2015)
  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • MMK Engineering v Mantrust Uganda Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 128 of 2012)
  • Bhaker Kotecha v Adam Muhammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Children of Africa v Sarick Construction Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 134 of 2016)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Asasira v Housing Finance Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 660 of 2019) [2023] UGCommC 2 (6 January 2023)
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.