Wakilii

Attorney General v Akena (Miscellaneous Application 110 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 156 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside exparte judgment arising from Civil Suit No. 0031 of 2020
Decision
Application to set aside exparte judgment dismissed; underlying exparte judgment stands

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 Attorney General's application to set aside an exparte judgment. The court held that Government Proceedings (Civil Procedure) Rules rule 6, which requires leave of court before an exparte judgment can be entered against the government, does not exempt government from ordinary procedural compliance. The applicant failed to establish sufficient cause for not filing a defence within the extended period provided under the rules, as COVID-19 restrictions had been eased and the applicant had ample time and resources to investigate and file a defence. Mere delay attributed to investigative needs does not constitute sufficient cause under Order 9 rule 27.

Outcome

Application to set aside exparte judgment dismissed; underlying exparte judgment stands

Facts

The respondent, Akena Martin, was shot by Uganda Police Force officers on 28 May 2020 while they were quelling a protest at Kichwabugingo Trading Centre in Kiryandongo district. He sustained major arm and rib injuries requiring surgery and hospital admission. The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 0031 of 2020 on 29 June 2020. The Attorney General was served with summons to file a defence on 15 July 2020 but filed no defence. The respondent served witness statements and hearing notices. When the matter came up for hearing on 6 April 2022, the applicant did not appear despite service of hearing notices on 22 September 2021. An exparte judgment was entered on 30 August 2022. The Attorney General filed this application to set aside the exparte judgment on 22 September 2022, citing COVID-19 lockdown restrictions as preventing timely investigation and filing of a defence.

Issues

  1. Whether the exparte judgment passed in HCCS No. 0031 of 2020 is regular.
  2. Whether the applicant has satisfied the grounds for setting aside the exparte judgment in HCCS No. 31 of 2020.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Setting Aside Exparte Judgments — Government Proceedings — Rule 6 of Government Proceedings (Civil Procedure) Rules
Rule 6 of the Government Proceedings (Civil Procedure) Rules, which requires leave of court before an exparte judgment or order can be entered against the government, does not exempt government from compliance with ordinary procedural rules or entitle government to special treatment different from other litigants. Government has sufficient resources to enable ease of work and should not be treated differently when it comes to filing defences.
Setting Aside Exparte Judgments — Sufficient Cause — COVID-19 Restrictions
Where a party has been given extended time to file a defence (30 days under Government Proceedings rules compared to 15 days for ordinary litigants) and where COVID-19 restrictions had been eased by the time the matter came up for hearing, the invocation of COVID-19 lockdown as preventing investigations does not constitute sufficient cause under Order 9 rule 27 for failure to file a defence, particularly where the party had access to permits and vehicles to carry out its duties.
Setting Aside Exparte Judgments — Sufficient Cause — Dilatory Conduct
Where an applicant was served with summons on 15 July 2020 and the matter was heard on 6 April 2022, a period of over 20 months, and the applicant neither filed a written statement of defence nor sought extension of time within which to file it, the applicant's conduct is dilatory and does not amount to sufficient cause warranting setting aside of an exparte judgment.
Setting Aside Exparte Judgments — No Defence Filed — Right of Audience
Where an applicant seeks to set aside an exparte judgment but has not filed a written statement of defence and has not sought extension of time within which to file it, the applicant would have no audience before the court even if the exparte judgment were set aside.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (11)

  • Remco Ltd v Miistray Jadbra Ltd (2002) 1 EA 233
  • Florence Nabatanzi v Naome Binsobedde (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 6 of 1987)
  • Hikima Kyamanywa v Sajjabi Chris (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2006)
  • Rosette Kizito v Administrator General & Ors (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 96 of 1986) [1993] KALR 4
  • Kotokyo Wilber William v John K. Kaggwa & Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 278 of 2019)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd & Others v International Credit Bank (In Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • Nampogo Robert & Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 43 of 2012)
  • Atukwase Nickson v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 437 of 2013)
  • Dr. James Rwanyarare v Attorney General (2003) 2 EA 664
  • Attorney General v Osotraco Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2002)
  • Kabandize & 20 Others v Kampala Capital City Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Attorney General v Akena (Miscellaneous Application 110 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 156 (22 December 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.