Wakilii

Butaleeba v Buuzabalyawo (Civil Miscellaneous Application 59 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 690 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside exparte order arising from Civil Suit No. 37 of 2019
Decision
Application dismissed; matter to proceed exparte against the applicant

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 High Court dismissed an application to set aside an exparte order where the applicant claimed he misheard the hearing date. The court held that the applicant failed to prove sufficient cause for non-appearance under Order 9 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules. No medical evidence was adduced to support the claim of hearing difficulties, and excuses regarding counsel's locked office and illness were unsupported. The applicant had repeatedly failed to file required documents despite multiple adjournments, demonstrating dilatory conduct.

Outcome

Application dismissed; matter to proceed exparte against the applicant

Facts

The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 37 of 2019 concerning a kibanja on which the applicant claimed interest. The matter came up for hearing on multiple occasions between October 2021 and October 2023. The applicant and his counsel repeatedly failed to file required court documents including scheduling memoranda, trial bundles, and witness statements despite several adjournments. On 27 April 2023, counsel for the defendant claimed involvement in a car accident and court adjourned to 16 October 2023 on condition that proof of the accident be produced. On 16 October 2023, neither the applicant nor his counsel appeared in court. Justice Nabakoza granted an order allowing the matter to proceed exparte. The applicant filed this application five months later seeking to set aside the exparte order, claiming he misheard the hearing date as 17 October 2023 due to developing hearing problems.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant had sufficient cause for non-appearance when the suit was called for hearing on 16 October 2023.
  2. Whether the applicant is guilty of dilatory conduct.
  3. Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay.
  4. Whether the applicant has satisfied the grounds for setting aside the exparte order.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Exparte order granted by Justice Flavia Nabakoza on 16 October 2023 upheld.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Exparte Orders — Setting Aside — Sufficient Cause for Non-Appearance
For an exparte order to be set aside under Order 9 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the applicant must prove on a balance of probabilities that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing. Unsubstantiated claims of mishearing a court date without medical evidence of hearing difficulties do not constitute sufficient cause.
Civil Procedure — Exparte Orders — Dilatory Conduct — Repeated Failure to File Documents
Where a party repeatedly fails to file required court documents (scheduling notes, trial bundles, witness statements) despite multiple adjournments and court directions, such conduct amounts to dilatory conduct that weighs against setting aside an exparte order.
Civil Procedure — Court Timelines — Responsibility of Parties — Confirmation of Dates
Where a party claims confusion about a hearing date announced in open court and interpreted in the local language by the court clerk, the party bears responsibility for confirming the date with the clerk. Failure to do so when in doubt does not constitute sufficient cause for non-appearance.
Civil Procedure — Applications to Set Aside — Supporting Evidence — Counsel's Illness and Office Closure
Counsel's claims of office closure due to rent arrears and ill health must be substantiated with adequate documentation including details of closure period, reopening date, and medical reports. Bare assertions supported only by receipts and a single lab report are insufficient to establish sufficient cause.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (6)

  • Ketty Nakanja v Yafesi Wamala and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2019)
  • National Insurance Corporation v Mugenyi & Co. Advocates [1987] HCB 28
  • Hikima Kyamanywa v Sajjabi Chris (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2006)
  • Roussos v Habib Virants (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • Stop and See (U) Limited v Tropical Africa Bank (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Brown v Dean [1910] AC 373

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Butaleeba v Buuzabalyawo (Civil Miscellaneous Application 59 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 690 (23 May 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.