Wakilii

Attorney General and 3 Others v TaJ Eports (U) Limited (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 786 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGHCLD 155 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex-parte judgment entered in Civil Suit No. 108 of 2016
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 dismissed the application to set aside an ex-parte judgment. The court held that the application was moot because the judgment and decree sought to be set aside had already been executed to completion by the applicant government agencies themselves. The applicants were effectively served with summons but failed to file a defence and thus excluded themselves from the jurisdiction of the court. The court found that the applicants failed to prove sufficient cause for not filing their defence within the requisite period and that they had not demonstrated merit in their proposed defence.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The respondent Taj Exports (U) Ltd obtained an ex-parte judgment against the applicants (Attorney General, Uganda Land Commission, Uganda Investment Authority, and Commissioner Land Registration) on 19 May 2016 in Civil Suit No. 108 of 2016 after the applicants failed to file a written statement of defence. The judgment was subsequently executed to completion—the government agencies issued the respondent a 99-year lease, accepted all requisite payments, and issued a title to the respondent. The applicants became aware of the judgment in December 2017 and filed this application in July 2020 seeking to set aside the ex-parte judgment. The applicants claimed their lawyers failed to inform them of the case and that they were denied a right to be heard. The respondent opposed, arguing the application was moot since the decree had been fully executed by the applicant government agencies themselves.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is competent, legal and factually tenable
  2. Whether the orders in HCCS No. 108 of 2016 can be set aside
  3. Whether the applicants were accorded a fair hearing
  4. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex-Parte Judgments — Mootness — Executed Decrees
An application to set aside an ex-parte judgment is moot and incompetent where the judgment and decree sought to be set aside have been executed to completion by the applicant parties themselves.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex-Parte Judgments — Sufficient Cause — Burden of Proof
A defendant seeking to set aside an ex-parte judgment must demonstrate not only that they were prevented by sufficient cause from filing a defence within the requisite period, but also that there is merit in the defence to the case.
Civil Procedure — Government Proceedings — Leave Requirement — Constitutional Interpretation
The requirement under Rule 6 of the Government Proceedings (Civil Procedure) Rules that leave of court must be sought before proceeding ex-parte against government is directory rather than mandatory, as article 21(1) of the Constitution prohibits any form of discrimination under the law and a law cannot impose a condition on one party and exempt the other from the same condition.
Civil Procedure — Approbation and Reprobation — Inconsistent Positions
A party cannot adopt two inconsistent attitudes—a party that has relied on and implemented the terms of a decree cannot thereafter challenge the same decree and seek to set it aside.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (18)

  • Miriam Kuteesa v Edith Nantumbwe & 3 Others (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 20 of 2014)
  • Mitanda Bakale Masso David v Uganda Revenue Authority (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1424 of 2017)
  • Kabandize & Others v KCCA (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2011)
  • Wamini v Kirima (1969) E.A. 172
  • Korutaro Mukairu (1978) HCB 215
  • S. Kyobe Senyange v Naks Ltd [1980] HCB
  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulam HH Viran (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1993)
  • Nasaka Farmers & Producers Ltd v Aloysius Tamale [1992-1993] HCB 203
  • Administrators of the Estate of the Late Sir Muhammad Buwule Kasasa and Edward Muteesa I & 3 Others v Dr Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 2139 of 2016)
  • The Registered Trustees of the Archdiocese of Dar es Salaam Vs the Chairman Bunju Village Government & Others
  • Gideon Mosa Onchwati v Kenya Oil Co Ltd & Another (2017) eKLR
  • Parimal v Veena
  • Nankanja v Yafesi Wamala, Kulaba David and Benedict (High Court Land Division No. 069 of 2018)
  • Bishop Jacinto Kibuka Vs-Uganda Catholic Lawyers & 2 Ors
  • Florence Nabatanzi v Naome Binsobodde (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 6 of 1987)
  • Sipiriya Kyaturesire v Justine Bakachulike Bagambe (Court of Appeal No. 20 of 1995)
  • Nwoya District Local Government v John Paul Onyee (Civil Application No. 31 of 2019)
  • Francis Butagira v Deborah Namukasa (1992-1993) HCB 98

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Attorney_General_and_3_Others_v_TaJ_Eports_(U)_Limited_(Civil_Miscellaneous_Application_No._786_of_2020)_[2021]_UGHCLD_155_(29_October_2021)
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.