Wakilii

Emmaus Foundation Investments Uganda Limited v Quirino Okello and Another [2026] UGHCLD 42

High Court · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion to set aside an order for substituted service and an order to proceed ex parte, and for leave to file a written statement of defence out of time in a pending land suit
Decision
Ex parte order and substituted service set aside; applicant granted fifteen days to file a defence and the main suit to proceed inter partes

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 court set aside an order for substituted service and an order to proceed ex parte, holding that substituted service under Order 5 rule 20 is an exceptional measure available only after all reasonable efforts at personal service have failed, and must be sought on full disclosure. The applicant's registered office, postal address and directors had been on record at the Uganda Registration Services Bureau since 2018, and the respondents' former counsel had prior knowledge of the applicant's leadership, so the order was obtained without disclosing available means of reaching the applicant. As the applicant had a prima facie defence raising triable issues on ownership and transfer of the suit land, it was granted fifteen days to file its defence and the suit was to proceed inter partes.

Outcome

Ex parte order and substituted service set aside; applicant granted fifteen days to file a defence and the main suit to proceed inter partes

Facts

The respondents sued the applicant company in Civil Suit No. 146 of 2019 for recovery of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 243 Plot 2123 at Luzira. After allegedly failing to trace the applicant, the respondents obtained an order for substituted service from the Deputy Registrar and published the summons in a newspaper; no defence was filed and an order to proceed ex parte was obtained. The applicant's director deposed that the company only recently learned of the suit, was never served, and that the application for substituted service was based on falsehoods because the company's registered office at Plot 10 Jinja Road and postal address 3009 Kampala, together with its directors, had been filed at the Uganda Registration Services Bureau since 26 March 2018. The respondents replied that the applicant was a briefcase company with no traceable address, that a companies registry search revealed no registered office, that substituted service ordered by court was good service, and that the applicant had conveyed its interest in the land to the estate of the late Fr. John Scalabrini and lacked locus. The applicant maintained it remained the registered proprietor and produced an intended written statement of defence raising issues on ownership and transfer.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant showed sufficient cause to set aside the ex parte proceedings in the main suit.
  2. Whether the substituted service of summons ordered by the Deputy Registrar was proper.
  3. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file a written statement of defence out of time.

Orders

  • The order for substituted service and the order to proceed ex parte in HCCS No. 146 of 2019 are set aside.
  • The applicant is granted leave to file its written statement of defence within fifteen (15) days from the date of the ruling.
  • The main suit shall proceed inter partes.
  • Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Summons — Substituted Service as an Exceptional Measure
Substituted service under Order 5 rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Rules is an exceptional measure that may only be resorted to after all reasonable efforts to effect personal service on the defendant have failed.
Civil Procedure — Substituted Service — Duty of Full Disclosure — Company Registry Particulars
An order for substituted service against a company is improperly obtained where the plaintiff fails to disclose available means of reaching the defendant, including a registered office, postal address and directors' particulars filed at the companies registry before the suit was instituted.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Proceedings — Non-service or Sufficient Cause under Order 9 rule 27
An applicant seeking to set aside ex parte proceedings must prove either that summons was not duly served or that sufficient cause prevented appearance; defective service establishes sufficient cause where it explains the defendant's ignorance of the suit.
Civil Procedure — Leave to File Defence Out of Time — Prima Facie Defence Raising Triable Issues
Where a defendant presents an intended written statement of defence disclosing a prima facie defence raising triable issues, it should be allowed to be heard and granted leave to defend out of time.
Human Rights — Right to a Fair Hearing — Substantive Justice over Procedural Technicalities
The right to a fair hearing under Articles 28(1) and 44(c) of the Constitution, read with Article 126(2)(c), requires that procedural technicalities such as irregular service not be allowed to deprive a party of the opportunity to be heard.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (3)

  • M.B. Automobiles vs. Terreuzi [1970] EA 446
  • Banco Arahe Espanol vs. Bank of Uganda [1999] 2 EA 12
  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulamhussein Habib Virani and Another (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Emmaus Foundation Investments Uganda Limited v Quirino Okello and Another [2026] UGHCLD 42 (23 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.