Busonga v Victory Christian Centre (Miscellaneous Application 466 of 2024)
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 held that effective personal service on the applicant had not been made before the respondent resorted to substituted service. Service on one joint administrator did not constitute sufficient service on all administrators of the estate. The applicant showed sufficient cause for failing to file defence in time and was granted leave to file defence out of time, with costs in the cause.
Outcome
Application granted — applicant permitted to file written statement of defence out of time; main suit to proceed to hearing
Facts
The respondent filed civil suit no. 309 of 2023 against defendants including the applicant, seeking declarations that the applicant was a trespasser on the respondent's land at Kibuga Block 7 Plot 967, Ndeeba. The respondent served summons on the 3rd defendant (the applicant's co-administrator of an estate) on 10 August 2023 but did not serve the applicant personally. The respondent then obtained an order for substituted service through the New Vision newspaper on 23 October 2023. No defence was filed and the court proceeded exparte. The applicant learned of the proceedings on 15 February 2024 through the 2nd defendant. The applicant brought this application for leave to file defence out of time, arguing that he was never personally served with summons. The respondent opposed, contending that service on the 3rd defendant as joint administrator bound the estate and that the applicant deliberately ignored the proceedings. The court found that the applicant lives on Kibuga Plot 968 Block 7, adjacent to the respondent's property, and could have been personally served.
Issues
- Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to file a written statement of defence out of time?
Orders
- Application granted.
- Applicant allowed to file his defence.
- Costs to be in the cause.
- Case 309 of 2023 fixed for hearing on 9th December 2024.
- Hearing notices to issue.
- In case the Applicant is unable to proceed, Court will go ahead with the exparte proceedings.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (12)
- Civil Procedure Act s.96
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 1(1)(a)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 8
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 9
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 10
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 18
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 8 rule 1(2)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 rule 10
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 51 rule 6
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 1
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 3
Cases cited (4)
- Hadondi Daniel v Yolam Egondi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2003)
- Rosette Kizito v Administrator General and Others (SCCA No. 9 of 1986)
- Geoffrey Gatete and Another v William Kuobe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal, [2007] UGSC 7)
- UTC v Katongole and Another ([1975] HCB 33)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.