Wakilii

Boliya Hussein Anwar v Wataba Robert and Others (Civil Suit No. 428 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 229 · 2026 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for default judgment against 2nd Defendant in first instance civil suit for recovery of money paid under failed land sale agreement
Decision
Default judgment entered against the 2nd Defendant for UGX 29,000,000 with interest and costs. Suit to proceed against the remaining defendants.

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 defendant is properly served with summons, fails to file a written statement of defence within the statutory period despite being afforded further opportunity, and the claim against that defendant is for a liquidated sum, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment in default under Order 9 Rules 6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The fact that other co-defendants have filed defences does not bar entry of default judgment against the defaulting defendant where the claim is distinct and severable. Default judgment granted for UGX 29,000,000 with interest at 10% per annum from date of judgment.

Outcome

Default judgment entered against the 2nd Defendant for UGX 29,000,000 with interest and costs. Suit to proceed against the remaining defendants.

Facts

The Plaintiff entered into a land sale agreement with the 1st Defendant on 18 March 2024 for the purchase of land in Entebbe for UGX 80,000,000. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants witnessed the transaction. The Plaintiff paid UGX 25,000,000 as deposit to the 1st Defendant and UGX 29,000,000 to the 2nd Defendant (UGX 9,000,000 cash and UGX 20,000,000 by RTGS) for boundary opening and creation of access to the land. The transaction was not completed as the Defendants failed to open boundaries and create the access road. The Plaintiff terminated the agreement on 9 May 2024 and demanded a refund. Summons to file defence were served on all Defendants on 5 November 2024. The 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants filed a joint defence on 30 November 2024, but the 2nd Defendant did not. Fresh summons were issued and served on the 2nd Defendant through his advocates on 20 May 2025. The 2nd Defendant failed to file a defence or seek leave to do so out of time.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff's case for default judgment is valid.
  2. What remedies are available.

Orders

  • Default judgment is entered for the Plaintiff against the 2nd Defendant for UGX 29,000,000.
  • The sum in (1) above shall attract interest at 10% per annum from date of this judgment until payment in full.
  • The Plaintiff shall have the costs of this application against the 2nd Defendant.
  • The suit shall proceed against the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants.

Rules and key headnotes

Default Judgment — Requirements for Entry — Service and Default
For a plaintiff to obtain default judgment under Order 9 Rules 6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, three requirements must be satisfied: proper service of summons to file defence must be proved by affidavit; the defendant must have failed to file a defence within the statutory period without seeking leave to do so out of time; and the claim must be for a liquidated demand capable of immediate ascertainment.
Service of Process — Presumption of Regularity — Burden of Proof
Once an affidavit of service is filed on the court record, the presumption of proper service arises and the evidential burden shifts to the party disputing service to rebut that presumption. In the absence of any challenge or rebuttal, the presumption of proper service remains intact.
Default Judgment — Multiple Defendants — Severability of Claims
Under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where a suit is brought against several defendants and some file defences while another defaults, the court may enter judgment against the defaulting defendant without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to proceed against the defending defendants, provided the claim against the defaulting defendant is distinct and severable.
Procedural Timelines — Compliance — Consequences of Non-Compliance
Procedural timelines prescribed under the Civil Procedure Rules are matters of substantive law and not mere technicalities. Parties must strictly observe statutory timelines and cannot disregard procedural obligations at their convenience. A party who disregards them does so at his peril.
Costs — Costs Follow the Event — Entitlement of Successful Party
Under Section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, costs ordinarily follow the event and a successful litigant is entitled to costs as compensation for expenses incurred in prosecuting the claim, unless there is good reason to deprive the successful party of costs.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (6)

  • Kanji Naran v Velji Ramji (1954) 21 EACA 20
  • KCB Bank Uganda Limited v Raid Technologies Ltd and Others (Civil Suit No. 449 of 2025)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Services Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2000)
  • Dembe Trading Enterprises Ltd v Uganda Confidential and Teddy Ssezi Kyeye (HCT-00-CC-CS-0612-2006)
  • Simon Tendo Kabenge v Barclays Bank Uganda Ltd (SCCA No. 17 of 2015)
  • Kinyera George Candano v Victoria Seeds Ltd (Civil Suit No. 604 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Boliya Hussein Anwar v Wataba Robert and Others (Civil Suit No. 428 of 2024) [2026] UGHCCD 229 (13 July 2026)
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.