Wakilii

Byaruhanga Muhamudu v Kyazze Juliet Nalwoga (Miscellaneous Application No. 1042 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 129 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte judgment and decree arising from Civil Suit No. 37 of 2019
Decision
Ex parte judgment set aside; applicant granted leave to file defence

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 set aside an ex parte judgment and decree where service of summons was effected on an advocate who had no instructions from the defendant to accept service. The court held that service on an advocate is valid only where the advocate is duly appointed under Order 3 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and that the defendant's constitutional right to a fair hearing under Article 28 was violated when he was condemned unheard.

Outcome

Ex parte judgment set aside; applicant granted leave to file defence

Facts

The respondent instituted Civil Suit No. 37 of 2019 against the applicant for breach of a sale agreement concerning land. M/s Higenyi, Ngugo & Wadamba Advocates filed a written statement of defence on behalf of the applicant, but the applicant did not appear and the matter proceeded ex parte. Judgment was entered in favour of the respondent. The applicant later learned of the judgment in June 2024 and applied to set it aside, claiming he was never served with summons and never instructed the advocates to represent him. The advocates who filed the defence confirmed they acted without formal instructions, having been served due to a prior working relationship with the applicant.

Issues

  1. Whether there is sufficient cause to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 37 of 2019?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The ex parte proceedings, judgment, and the decree issued against the Applicant in Civil Suit No. 37 of 2019 are hereby set aside.
  • The execution of all the consequential orders arising out of the decree entered against the Applicant in Civil Suit No. 37 of 2019 are hereby set aside.
  • The Applicant is hereby granted leave to file his written statement of defence in Civil Suit No. 37 of 2019, and serve the same on the Respondent within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Ruling.
  • The Respondent shall file a reply to the written statement of defence within fifteen (15) days after receipt of the written statement of defence.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Service of Process — Requirements for Valid Service on Advocate
Service of summons on an advocate is presumed to be service on the party only where the advocate is duly appointed to act on the client's behalf under Order 3 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Where an advocate accepts service without instructions from the client, such service is invalid.
Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgments — Sufficient Cause
Under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules, an applicant seeking to set aside an ex parte decree must show that summons were not duly served or that they were prevented by sufficient reason from appearing. Service on an advocate without proper instructions constitutes failure of due service and amounts to sufficient cause.
Right to Fair Hearing — Condemning Party Unheard
Where a party is condemned unheard due to invalid service of summons, their constitutional right to a fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution is violated. Courts must ensure that parties are properly served before proceeding ex parte.
Supplementary Affidavits — Timing and Procedural Regularity
A supplementary affidavit filed before the hearing date and before the closing of pleadings is procedurally proper, provided it is served on the opposing party. Pleadings close before the date fixed for the hearing of the application.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (9)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Ltd v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Dr. Lam-Lagoro James v Muni University (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 07 of 2016)
  • Victoria Seeds Limited and Another v Lawbert Consults and Agencies (U) Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1121 of 2019)
  • Surgipharm (U) Ltd v Uganda Investment Authority and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 65 of 2021)
  • Bishop Jacinto Kibuuka v The Uganda Catholic Lawyers Society Fraternity and Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 696 of 2018)
  • Kabale Housing Estate Tenants Association Ltd v Kabale Municipal Local Government Council (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 15 of 2013)
  • Rossete Kizito v Administrator General and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1986)
  • Florence Nabatanzi v Naome Binsobedde (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1987)
  • Sipiriya Kyarulesire v Justine Bakanchulike Bagambe (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Byaruhanga Muhamudu v Kyazze Juliet Nalwoga (Miscellaneous Application No. 1042 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 129 (27 March 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.