Wakilii

Bank of Baroda (U) Limited v Augustine Kasozi and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 868-2024)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 419 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside default judgment arising from Civil Suit No. 165 of 2019
Decision
Default judgment set aside; applicant granted leave to file written statement of defence within 3 days.

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 where a default judgment has been entered due to an inadvertent omission by the defendant's internal officer to forward summons to external counsel, the Court has discretion under Order 9 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules to set aside the judgment where the delay is satisfactorily explained and it is in the interest of justice to determine the matter on its merits. The application to set aside default judgment was allowed with time extended for filing of defence.

Outcome

Default judgment set aside; applicant granted leave to file written statement of defence within 3 days.

Facts

Bank of Baroda (U) Limited was served with summons on 17 November 2016 through its Manager Legal & Compliance. The Manager forwarded the documents to the Assistant General Manager on 18 November 2016 for onward transmission to external counsel to file a defence. The Assistant General Manager inadvertently omitted to forward the documents to external counsel. A default judgment was entered against the bank on 6 December 2016 under Order 9 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The bank filed this application to set aside the default judgment, claiming the omission by its officer amounted to sufficient cause. The respondents opposed, arguing the application was incompetent due to a similar subsisting application filed in 2017, and that the bank's failure constituted inexcusable dilatory conduct.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant disclosed sufficient grounds for the grant of reliefs sought.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The default judgment in Civil Suit No. 0165 of 2019 is hereby set aside.
  • The time within which to file a defence by the Applicant is extended.
  • Leave is hereby granted to the Applicant to file a written statement of defence in Civil Suit No. 0165 of 2019 within 3 days from this order.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Default Judgment — Court's Discretion
Order 9 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules confers wide discretion on the Court to set aside ex parte judgment on terms that may be just, to be exercised judiciously in light of the facts, circumstances, and merits of the particular case.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Default Judgment — Sufficient Cause — Internal Administrative Error
An inadvertent omission by a defendant's internal officer to forward summons and plaint to external counsel for filing of defence constitutes sufficient cause for setting aside a default judgment where the delay is satisfactorily explained, particularly in the interest of determining the matter on its merits.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Factors for Consideration
The factors to be considered in an application for extension of time are the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the possibility or chances of success, and the degree of prejudice to the other party. Once a delay is not accounted for, it does not matter the length of the delay; there must always be an explanation for the period of delay.
Civil Procedure — Substantive Justice — Purpose of the Court
Where a mistake or blunder has been made, it does not follow that a party should suffer the penalty of not having their case determined on its merits. The Court exists for the purpose of deciding the rights of the parties and not for the purpose of imposing discipline.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (5)

  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulamhussein Habib Virani and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • Associate Professor Akakunda Bwesigye v Housing Finance Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1445 of 2022)
  • Bankone Limited v Simbamanyo Estates Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 645 of 2020)
  • Mulindwa George William v Kisubika (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2014)
  • Phillip Keiptoo Chemwolo & Anor Vs Augustine Kubende, Civil Appeal No.103 of 1984, Court of Appeal (Nairobi)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bank of Baroda (U) Limited v Augustine Kasozi and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 868-2024) [2024] UGCommC 419 (29 October 2024)
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.