Wakilii

Ddamba Susan v John W. Katende and Fredrick Ssempebwa (Miscellaneous Application No.1261 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 214 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to dismiss suit or set aside ex parte proceedings arising from Civil Suit No. 3030 of 2016 (formerly Civil Suit No. 15 of 2010)
Decision
Suit against deceased party struck out; ex parte proceedings against applicant set aside; applicant granted leave to file defence within 21 days

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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

A suit instituted against a person already deceased at the time of filing is ipso facto void and incurably defective, as a dead person lacks legal personality. The court distinguished this from a defendant who dies during pendency of the suit, where substitution of legal representatives is possible. The ex parte proceedings against the surviving applicant were set aside where the respondents had actual knowledge of the applicant's whereabouts and had interacted with her, yet misled the court into granting substituted service and proceeding ex parte. The applicant was granted leave to file a defence out of time in the interests of justice.

Outcome

Suit against deceased party struck out; ex parte proceedings against applicant set aside; applicant granted leave to file defence within 21 days

Facts

In 1995, the applicant purchased land comprised in Kyadondo Block 200 Plot 220 at Kawempe measuring 5 acres. She transferred 2.5 acres (Plot 498) to Ssendagire Abdul and retained 2.5 acres (Plot 499) in her name. The respondents, claiming to be registered proprietors of the original Plot 220, lodged caveats on both subdivided plots in 2008 and filed Civil Suit No. 15 of 2010 against the applicant and Ssendagire Abdul. Ssendagire Abdul had died in 2002, before the suit was filed. The suit proceeded by way of substituted service and ex parte orders were granted. The applicant only learned of the suit in 2021 when attempting to sell part of her land. The suit was dismissed for want of prosecution in 2022, but was later reinstated. The applicant discovered the reinstatement only when court conducted a locus visit in May 2025. The applicant and the legal representatives of the deceased Ssendagire Abdul brought this application to dismiss the suit or set aside the ex parte proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether Civil Suit No. 3030 of 2016 is proper before this Court?
  2. Whether sufficient grounds exist to set aside the ex parte proceedings and orders in Civil Suit No. 3030 of 2016?
  3. Whether the Applicant is entitled to an enlargement of time to file a defence?

Orders

  • The suit against the late Ssendagire Abdul is incurably defective and is hereby struck out.
  • The ex parte proceedings against the Applicant are hereby set aside.
  • The Applicant is granted leave to file her written statement of defence in Civil Suit No. 3030 of 2016 within 21 days from the date hereof.
  • Each party bears their own costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Parties — Suit Against Deceased Person — Nullity
A suit instituted against a person who is already deceased at the time of filing is ipso facto void and incurably defective, as a dead person lacks legal personality and no valid legal action can be taken against them, rendering any decree or judgment obtained in such a suit a nullity.
Civil Procedure — Parties — Death During Pendency — Distinction from Suit Against Deceased
There is a distinction between a suit instituted against a dead person and one where the defendant dies during the pendency of the suit. Where a defendant dies during pendency, the legal representatives can be substituted and the suit may proceed. Where the suit was brought against a person already dead, the suit is a nullity at inception and cannot be cured by amendment or substitution.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Substituted Service — Duty to Trace Defendant
The burden of properly identifying and serving defendants rests with the party instituting the suit. Where a defendant is in occupation of the suit land with a caretaker and is known to local authorities, and the plaintiff has had actual contact with the defendant, an order for substituted service obtained on the ground that the defendant's whereabouts are unknown is irregular and casts doubt on the good faith of the plaintiff.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Proceedings — Setting Aside — Order 9 Rule 27
Under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a court may set aside an ex parte decree where the defendant satisfies the court that summons was not duly served or that the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing. The court's inherent power under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act empowers it to make orders necessary for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process.
Civil Procedure — Fair Hearing — Right to Be Heard — Article 28 of the Constitution
Article 28 of the Constitution guarantees every person the right to a fair hearing before an independent tribunal. Where a party is a registered proprietor of land and has demonstrated interest in defending a suit claiming ownership of that land, the interests of justice require that the party be accorded a fair hearing and that both parties be heard so that the court may dispose of the suit on its merits.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (2)

  • Abdala Ramathan v Agony Swaib (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 0067 of 2016)
  • Parker v Parker [1953] 1 All ER 929

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Ddamba_Susan_v_John_W._Katende_and_Fredrick_Ssempebwa_(Miscellaneous_Application_No.1261_of_2025)_[2025]_UGHCLD_214_(1_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.