Wakilii

Busulwa Lule Frank and Another v Laban Lwasa (Miscellaneous Application No. 835 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 149 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside exparte judgment arising from Civil Suit No. 595 of 2022
Decision
Exparte judgment set aside; matter to proceed to hearing on the merits inter-partes

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 the applicants established sufficient cause for setting aside the exparte judgment under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court found that the applicants' former advocates were negligent in failing to inform their clients of hearing dates and failing to file evidence despite receiving instructions and legal fees. Applying the principle that a mistake or negligence by counsel should not be visited upon the litigant, the court set aside the exparte judgment and ordered the suit to be heard on its merits inter-partes.

Outcome

Exparte judgment set aside; matter to proceed to hearing on the merits inter-partes

Facts

The respondent commenced Civil Suit No. 595 of 2022 against the applicants for recovery of damages for breach of contract and fraud relating to land sale agreements dated 22 December 2018 and 17 December 2020. The applicants instructed Emoru & Co. Advocates who filed a written statement of defence and executed a joint scheduling memorandum. However, the applicants' advocates failed to file witness statements and trial bundles, failed to attend court proceedings, and did not inform the applicants of hearing dates despite being duly served with hearing notices. The court proceeded exparte and delivered judgment on 25 July 2024. The applicants only learned of the exparte judgment subsequently and instructed new advocates to bring this application to set aside the judgment on the ground that their former advocates' negligence constituted sufficient cause under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants have provided sufficient reasons to set aside the exparte judgement entered against them in Civil Suit No. 595 of 2022.
  2. Whether the exparte decree should be set aside.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Exparte judgment set aside.
  • Suit to be set down to be heard on its merits inter-partes.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Exparte Judgments — Sufficient Cause — Negligence of Counsel
A mistake, negligence, oversight or error on the part of counsel constitutes sufficient cause under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules to set aside an exparte judgment and should not be visited upon the litigant, so that the matter may be considered on its merits.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Exparte Judgments — Sufficient Cause — Test
What amounts to sufficient reason or cause for setting aside an exparte decree under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules depends on the circumstances of each case and must relate to inability or failure to take a particular step in time.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Exparte Judgments — Advocate's Negligence — Failure to Communicate Hearing Dates
Where an advocate receives hearing notices but deliberately fails to inform the client of critical hearing dates, thereby depriving the client of the opportunity to participate in proceedings, and fails to file evidence despite receiving instructions and legal fees, such negligence constitutes sufficient cause to set aside an exparte judgment in the interest of justice.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (4)

  • Florence Nabatanzi v Naome Binsobedde (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 6 of 1987)
  • Hikima Kyamanywa v Sajjabi Chris (CACA No. 1 of 2006)
  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulamu Hussein Habib Virani and Others (SCCA No. 9 of 1993)
  • Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (SCCA No. 8 of 1998)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Busulwa_Lule_Frank_and_Another_v_Laban_Lwasa_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._835_of_2025)_[2025]_UGHCLD_149_(28_July_2025)
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.