Wakilii

Centenary Rural Development Bank Ltd v 200D Investment SMC Ltd and Another (Civil Suit No. 25 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 974 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for default judgment under Order 9 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules following defendants' failure to file defence
Decision
Application for default judgment dismissed with directions to effect proper service on defendants

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 6 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 6 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations fading — 6 citing cases on record, 5 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 found that the plaintiff's claim of UGX 96,092,236 arising from a loan facility agreement constituted a liquidated demand. However, the court declined to enter default judgment because the affidavit of service did not demonstrate effective service on the defendants. The process server's affidavit lacked sufficient detail to show the defendants were made aware of the suit, and no alternative service methods were attempted after the 2nd defendant declined to acknowledge receipt. The plaintiff was directed to effect proper service before default judgment could be entered.

Outcome

Application for default judgment dismissed with directions to effect proper service on defendants

Facts

The plaintiff bank granted the 1st defendant a commercial loan of UGX 60,000,000 for twelve months at 23% interest per annum pursuant to a Banking Facility Agreement dated 17 March 2021. The loan was secured by land registered in the name of the 2nd defendant, a debenture charge over the 1st defendant's assets, and a personal guarantee from the 2nd defendant who was a director of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant defaulted on repayment. The plaintiff sued to recover UGX 96,092,236 representing principal and accrued interest. The defendants were allegedly served on 12 November 2022 but failed to file a defence. The plaintiff applied for default judgment under Order 9 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff's claim constitutes a liquidated demand within the meaning of Order 9 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the defendants were effectively served with summons to file a defence.

Orders

  • Application for default judgment dismissed.
  • Plaintiff directed to take out fresh summons within one week from the date of delivery of this ruling.
  • Plaintiff directed to effectively serve the defendants before the court enters default judgment under Order 9 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Default Judgment — Liquidated Demand — Definition and Requirements
A liquidated demand is in the nature of a debt, a specific sum of money due and payable under or by virtue of a contract which is either already ascertained or capable of being ascertained as a mere matter of arithmetic.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Effective Service — Definition and Purpose
Effective service of summons is service that produces the desired or intended result, namely to make the defendant aware of the suit brought against him so that he can respond to it by either defending the suit or admitting liability and submitting to judgment.
Civil Procedure — Service on Corporations — Requirements under Order 29 Rule 2
Service of process on a corporation must be made on a recognized agent of the corporation to constitute valid personal service on a principal, and may be effected on the secretary, any director or other principal officer of the corporation, or by leaving it or sending it by post addressed to the corporation at the registered office or place of business.
Civil Procedure — Default Judgment — Preconditions — Proof of Effective Service
Before a court enters default judgment under Order 9 rule 6, it must be satisfied that the defendants were effectively served with summons to file a defence but willfully refused to file a defence. An affidavit of service that lacks sufficient detail to demonstrate that the defendant was made aware of the suit does not establish effective service.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (4)

  • George Begumisa v East African Development Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 451 of 2010)
  • Geoffrey Gatete and Another v William Kyobe (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
  • David Ssesanga v Greenland Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (HCMA No. 406 of 2006)
  • M/s Semuyaba, Iga & Co. Advocates and Another v The Attorney General of the Republic of South Sudan and 2 Others (HCMA No. 4 of 2022)

Cases citing this judgment (6)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Centenary Rural Development Bank Ltd v 200D Investment SMC Ltd and Another (Civil Suit No. 25 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 974 (3 September 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.