Wakilii

Attorney General v Ejulu (Civil Application 64 of 2012)

High Court · [2014] UGHCCD 39 · 2014 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte judgment and for leave to defend arising from civil suit
Decision
Ex parte judgment set aside; matter to proceed inter partes with the applicant having the opportunity to cross-examine the respondent and his witnesses

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 set aside an ex parte judgment where an initial order to proceed ex parte had been overtaken by events when the defendant's counsel appeared and was informed of the hearing date, but no fresh order to proceed ex parte was made when the case later proceeded in the defendant's absence. The applicant was entitled to cross-examine the respondent and witnesses, and the judgment was not a final judgment rendering the matter res judicata.

Outcome

Ex parte judgment set aside; matter to proceed inter partes with the applicant having the opportunity to cross-examine the respondent and his witnesses

Facts

The Attorney General was the defendant in Civil Suit 13 of 2009. On 10 February 2011, an order to proceed ex parte was made when the defendant's representative was absent. However, on 6 April 2011, counsel for the Attorney General appeared, a joint scheduling memorandum was filed, and counsel was informed of the hearing date of 20 April 2011. On 20 April 2011, the defendant was not represented, and the plaintiff's counsel made reference to the earlier ex parte order and proceeded to call two witnesses. Judgment was delivered on 6 February 2012. The Attorney General then applied to set aside the ex parte judgment, arguing non-compliance with Rule 6 of the Government Proceedings Rules and that no fresh order to proceed ex parte had been made on 20 April 2011.

Issues

  1. Whether the ex parte judgment should be set aside where no fresh order to proceed ex parte was made after the defendant's counsel appeared in court.
  2. Whether there was non-compliance with Rule 6 of the Government Proceedings Rules requiring leave of court before a default judgment can be made against the Attorney General.
  3. Whether the ex parte judgment constituted a final judgment rendering the matter res judicata.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Ex parte judgment set aside.
  • Date to be fixed for the case to proceed inter partes.
  • Typed proceedings to be availed to both counsel.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Orders — Effect of Subsequent Appearance by Defendant's Counsel
Where an order to proceed ex parte is made in the absence of the defendant's representative, but the defendant's counsel subsequently appears, addresses the court, and is informed of the hearing date, the initial ex parte order is overtaken by events and a fresh order to proceed ex parte must be made if the case is to proceed in the defendant's absence at a later date.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Judgments — Setting Aside — Right to Cross-Examine
Where no order to proceed ex parte was made on the date evidence was recorded, the defendant retains the right to cross-examine the plaintiff and the plaintiff's witnesses, and the ex parte judgment is liable to be set aside.
Administrative Law — Government Proceedings — Application of Civil Procedure Rules
Rule 3 of the Government Proceedings Rules extends the application of the Civil Procedure Rules to proceedings involving government. The Government Proceedings Rules do not exempt government proceedings from the operation of Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (2)

  • Road Master v Tarlock Singh Sagg (Uganda Commercial Reports 1997-2001, 378)
  • Salem Zaida v Faud Hussein Humeidan [1960] 1 EA 92

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Attorney General v Ejulu (Civil Application 64 of 2012) [2014] UGHCCD 39 (13 March 2014)
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.