Wakilii

Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Isa Bukenya t a New Mars Wear House [1992] UGSC 2

Supreme Court · 1992 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from the High Court's dismissal of an application to set aside an ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the High Court's refusal to set aside the ex parte decree upheld

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 Supreme Court held that the trial judge wrongly failed to give reasons for dismissing the application and had misstated the basis on which the ex parte hearing proceeded (an affidavit of service rather than a date fixed by consent). Nonetheless, exercising the High Court's powers under Order 9 Rule 24, the Court found that the appellant Board had to show either that summons was not duly served or that it was prevented from appearing by sufficient cause. The hearing date had been fixed by consent, so no further hearing notice was required; the advocate's forgetfulness of that date was not sufficient cause. The trial judge therefore reached the right conclusion for the wrong reasons, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; the High Court's refusal to set aside the ex parte decree upheld

Facts

The respondent, Isa Bukenya trading as New Mars Wear House, sued the appellant Board in the High Court to recover property and for general damages for trespass, loss of a trading licence and loss of business, claiming he was the lawful occupant of a shop in William Street, Kampala, allocated to him by the Board. The Board denied that he was its lawful tenant. The matter was set down for hearing on 23 January 1991, a date taken by consent of both parties and signed by the Registrar on 9 July 1990. The Board's advocate did not appear, and the suit proceeded ex parte, resulting in judgment for the respondent of about Shs. 15,642,201/=. The Board applied to set aside the ex parte decree, asserting it expected a further hearing notice. The trial judge dismissed the application with costs without giving detailed reasons, and the Board appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge erred in law by dismissing the application to set aside the ex parte decree without giving detailed reasons.
  2. Whether the trial judge erred in failing to exercise her discretion to set aside the ex parte decree where there were good grounds for doing so.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Judgments and Rulings — Duty to Give Reasons
A court is required to give reasons for its rulings and orders, and a ruling that dismisses an application without stating reasons is defective.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree — Order 9 Rule 24 — Conditions
An ex parte decree may be set aside under Order 9 Rule 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules only where the applicant satisfies the court that the summons was not duly served or that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing.
Civil Procedure — Hearing Date Fixed by Consent — No Further Hearing Notice Required
Where a hearing date is fixed by consent of the parties, the Registry issues no further hearing notice, and it is for the advocate to keep in touch with the Registry and proceed according to the consent date.
Civil Procedure — Sufficient Cause — Advocate's Forgetfulness of Consent Date
An advocate's forgetfulness of a hearing date that was taken by consent does not amount to sufficient cause preventing a party from appearing for the purpose of setting aside an ex parte decree.
Civil Procedure — Appellate Powers — Right Decision for Wrong Reasons
An appellate court exercising the powers of the court appealed from may uphold a decision reached for the wrong reasons by substituting the correct reasons where the same conclusion is inevitable.

Legislation cited (2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Isa Bukenya t a New Mars Wear House [1992] UGSC 2 (30 June 1992)
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.