Wakilii

Edmond Sebugwawo v Mupere Anthony (Miscellaneous Application No. 149 of 2018)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 259 · 2018 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte default judgment arising from Civil Suit No. 281 of 2014
Decision
Application dismissed. Ex parte judgment and 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

Application to set aside ex parte judgment dismissed. The court held that the application was res judicata, having been previously dismissed in 2015, and constituted an abuse of court process. The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause or a bona fide defence on the merits, having advanced inconsistent versions in successive affidavits. The application was filed after execution proceedings commenced and appeared designed to delay justice.

Outcome

Application dismissed. Ex parte judgment and decree upheld.

Facts

The respondent obtained an ex parte default judgment against the applicant on 19 September 2014 for UGX 134,600,000 plus interest and damages for breach of contract. The applicant had been served through his lawyers who acknowledged receipt. The applicant filed an application in 2015 to set aside the default judgment which was dismissed on 25 May 2015. The matter proceeded to formal proof and final judgment was entered on 14 September 2017 awarding the principal sum, interest at 10% per month, and general damages of UGX 30,000,000. After the respondent commenced execution proceedings in January 2018, the applicant filed this second application in March 2018 to set aside the same ex parte judgment, raising substantially the same grounds as the 2015 application. The applicant filed multiple affidavits with inconsistent versions of events and defences.

Issues

  1. Whether the application to set aside the ex parte judgment is barred by res judicata.
  2. Whether the application constitutes an abuse of court process.
  3. Whether the applicant has sufficient cause to set aside the ex parte decree.
  4. Whether the applicant has a good defence on the merits.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.
  • Applicant's advocates ordered to show cause by 6th July 2018 at 2:00 pm why they should not be condemned to pay costs personally.
  • Advocates to file affidavit in defence of their conduct by 6th July 2018.

Rules and key headnotes

Res Judicata — Second Application on Same Grounds
Res judicata bars a party from bringing a claim if a court of competent jurisdiction has rendered final judgment on the merits in a previous action involving the same parties and claims. Where an application to set aside an ex parte judgment has been determined and dismissed, a subsequent application seeking the same relief on substantially the same grounds is barred by res judicata.
Abuse of Court Process — Multiplicity of Suits
Abuse of court process occurs when a party employs judicial process for some unlawful object or purpose not intended by law. Filing multiple applications on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issue and on the same set of facts constitutes abuse of court process, particularly where the purpose is to delay justice.
Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment — Requirements
Where it is established that the defendant was served, the court has discretion to set aside an ex parte judgment obtained in default of appearance provided that no injustice is caused to either party. The discretion is exercised to avoid injustice from accident, inadvertence, or excusable mistake, but is not designed to assist a person who deliberately sought to obstruct or delay justice. The court must be satisfied that the defendant has a good defence on the merits.
Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment — Defence on Merits Required
An application to set aside an ex parte judgment cannot succeed if no good defence or substantial reasons are given to justify setting aside. Where an applicant advances inconsistent and shifting versions of events in successive affidavits and fails to demonstrate a bona fide defence, the application will be dismissed.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (8)

  • Shah v Mbogo [1967] EA 116
  • Begumisa and Others v Tibebaga [2004] 2 EA 17
  • Caneland Ltd & Others v Delphis Bank Ltd (Civil Application No. 344 of 1999)
  • Benkay Nigeria Limited vs Cadbury Nigeria Limited No. 29 of 2006 (Supreme Court of Nigeria)
  • Seraki vs Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (pt 264) 156 at 188
  • Gateway Insurance Co Limited v Mohammed Athman Mjahid [2003] 1 EA 74
  • Twiga Chemical Industries v Bamusedde [2005] 2 EA 325
  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Issa Bukenya (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1991)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Edmond Sebugwawo v Mupere Anthony (Miscellaneous Application No. 149 of 2018) [2018] UGHCCD 259 (2 July 2018)
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.