Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited v The Management Committee of St. Peters Educational Hill Mixed Primary School (Civil Appeal 23 of 2024) [202

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.

Holding

The High Court allowed the appeal on procedural grounds. The court held that where a defendant with a defence on record fails to attend one hearing session and the court grants leave to proceed ex parte but adjourns the matter, the defendant must be served with a fresh hearing notice for the subsequent hearing date. Failure to do so renders the ex parte proceedings irregular. The court also found it irregular for the trial court to deliver judgment without addressing the counterclaim filed by the appellant. The ex parte proceedings, judgment and decree were set aside and the matter remitted for fresh hearing inter party.

Outcome

Matter remitted to trial court for fresh hearing inter party before a different Chief Magistrate

Facts

The respondent school sued the appellant bank and others in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Kiboga claiming that the appellant illegally attached and closed the school in connection with a loan facility that the school had never secured. The appellant denied closing the school and filed a counterclaim against a school director for outstanding loan arrears. The trial court found in favour of the respondent and awarded special damages of UGX 49,124,500, general damages of UGX 20,000,000, interest at 6%, and costs. The proceedings at trial were conducted ex parte after the appellant's counsel repeatedly failed to appear despite being served with hearing notices. On 6 October 2022, the court granted leave to proceed ex parte but adjourned to 20 October 2022. The appellant was not served with a fresh hearing notice for the 20 October hearing. The trial judgment did not address the appellant's counterclaim.

Issues

1. Whether the trial magistrate erred in proceeding ex parte without serving the appellant with a fresh hearing notice after adjournment.
2. Whether the trial court erred in failing to address the counterclaim filed by the appellant.

Orders

• Appeal allowed.
• Ex parte proceedings, judgment and decree set aside.
• Matter to be heard de novo inter party before a different Chief Magistrate to be assigned by the Chief Registrar.
• Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant.
• Costs in the lower court to abide the outcome of the hearing de novo.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 Rule 20(1)(a)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 Rule 20(1)(c)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 8 Rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 11A Rule 6

Cases cited (4)

• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
• Father Narsensio Begumisa & 3 Others v Eric Tiberaga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 170 of 2000)
• Onek & Another v Omona (High Court Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2016)
• Onek Manancy & Another v Omona Micheal (High Court Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2016)

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