Wakilii

Dhanush Forwarders (K) Ltd v Coil Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2480 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 205 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte judgment entered in Civil Suit No. 512 of 2019
Decision
Application to set aside ex parte judgment dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 dismissed an application to set aside an ex parte judgment where the applicant's counsel had indicated withdrawal of instructions and substituted service was properly effected through newspaper advertisement. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules, finding that counsel's lack of instructions justified the order for substituted service and that the application was a deliberate attempt to delay justice.

Outcome

Application to set aside ex parte judgment dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The respondent instituted Civil Suit No. 512 of 2019 against the applicant for breach of a transportation and customs clearance contract. The applicant entered appearance, filed a defence, and participated in scheduling. On 5 March 2024, the applicant's advocates M/s Joel Cox Advocates were served with a hearing notice for 20 March 2024, but the firm indicated it had withdrawn from the matter. The court ordered substituted service through advertisement in The East African newspaper. The applicant's director attended court on 24 June 2024 but the matter was not called. A fresh hearing notice was advertised in The East African newspaper from 9-15 August 2025. When the applicant failed to appear on 20 August 2025, the court granted leave to proceed ex parte. Judgment was entered on 22 October 2025. The applicant subsequently filed this application seeking to set aside the ex parte judgment, claiming non-service and denying that counsel had withdrawn.

Issues

  1. Whether the ex parte judgment in Civil Suit No. 512 of 2019 should be set aside.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgments — Sufficient Cause — Withdrawal of Counsel
Where an advocate receives a hearing notice and indicates withdrawal of instructions, and the applicant produces no evidence of retainer proximate to that date, the court is justified in ordering substituted service and an application to set aside the subsequent ex parte judgment will fail for lack of sufficient cause under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Substituted Service — Effectiveness
Substituted service effected by advertisement in a newspaper pursuant to a court order under Order 5 rule 18(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules is as effectual as personal service and constitutes sufficient notice to the defendant.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgments — Delay of Justice
The court will not exercise its discretion to set aside an ex parte judgment where the application is found to be a deliberate action to delay the course of justice, as the court's concern in exercising such discretion is to do justice between the parties and not to assist a person who has deliberately sought to obstruct or delay justice.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (8)

  • Remco Ltd v Mistry Jadva Parbat and Co. Ltd and others [2002] 1 EA 233
  • Nicholus Roussos v Gulamhussein Habib Virani and another (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • ABII Clinic & Laboratory Services Ltd v Crown Health Care (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1586 of 2022)
  • Nsamo Amir v Equity Bank (U) Ltd [2017] UGCommC 145
  • Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537
  • Geoffrey Gatete v William Kyobe (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
  • Attorney General v NABCO Enterprises Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 20 of 2018)
  • Fenghuang Plastics Industries Ltd v Ssebunya and Anor (Revision Cause No. 3 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dhanush Forwarders (K) Ltd v Coil Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2480 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 205 (15 February 2026)
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.