Wakilii

Attorney General v NABCO Enterprises Ltd (MISC. CIVIL l APPLICATION No. 20 OF 2018)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 153 · 2019 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte order under Order 9 rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Decision
Ex parte order set aside; matter restored for hearing inter parties

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

Held that four days' notice of a hearing date to a government advocate who had prior commitments in another court was insufficient time to enable appearance. An order to proceed ex parte granted on such short notice was set aside under Order 9 rule 21, and the applicant was permitted to be heard as if she had appeared on the day fixed. The right to a fair trial under article 28(1) of the Constitution requires adequate notice and the opportunity to be heard.

Outcome

Ex parte order set aside; matter restored for hearing inter parties

Facts

The respondent filed suit against the Attorney General. The applicant was served with notice of hearing on 17 February 2017 for a hearing fixed on 21 February 2017, giving only four days' notice. The applicant's counsel did not appear on the hearing date. The court, satisfied that notice had been served, granted leave to proceed ex parte under Order 9 rule 20(1)(a). The respondent called one witness and closed its case. Three months later, the applicant applied to set aside the ex parte order, contending that the short notice was insufficient and that counsel had prior commitments at the High Court in Lira on the material date. The respondent opposed, arguing the applicant's non-appearance was unjustified and the application was filed with inordinate delay.

Issues

  1. Whether there was good cause for the applicant's non-appearance on the day fixed for hearing such that the ex parte order should be set aside.
  2. Whether four days' notice of a hearing date constitutes sufficient time under Order 9 rule 20(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The order to proceed ex-parte is set aside.
  • The suit is set down for hearing inter parties on 17th October, 2019.
  • The costs of the application are to abide the result of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Ex parte proceedings — Setting aside ex parte orders — Insufficient notice period
Four days' notice of a hearing date is insufficient time to enable a party to appear and answer where that party's counsel is a government advocate with prior court commitments elsewhere, and constitutes good cause for setting aside an ex parte order under Order 9 rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Notice of hearing — Sufficiency of notice period
What constitutes sufficient time of notice to enable a party to appear and answer on the day fixed varies from case to case, and is such time as suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable standard.
Civil Procedure — Ex parte proceedings — Court's duty under Order 9 rule 20(1)(c)
Where notice of hearing was served on a defendant but not in sufficient time to enable appearance, the court is required under Order 9 rule 20(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules to postpone the hearing to a future day and direct notice to be given, rather than proceeding ex parte under Order 9 rule 20(1)(a).
Constitutional Law — Fair trial rights — Right to adequate notice and hearing
The right to a fair trial in civil matters guaranteed by article 28(1) of the Constitution requires that parties be given adequate notice and opportunity to be heard before an independent and impartial court, and courts have a responsibility to ensure proceedings are conducted in a manner consistent with this right.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (1)

  • Phelps v Button [2016] EWHC 3185

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Attorney General Vs NABCO Enterprises Ltd (MISC. CIVIL l APPLICATION No. 20 OF 2018) [2019] UGHCCD 153 (16 May 2019)
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.