Wakilii

Emmaus Foundation Investments Uganda Limited v Quirino Okello and Another (Civil Suit No. 146 of 2019; Miscellaneous Application No. 1307 of 2022)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 42 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte proceedings and order for substituted service arising from Civil Suit No. 146 of 2019
Decision
Ex parte proceedings set aside; matter to proceed inter-partes with applicant granted leave to file defence

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

Held that substituted service was improperly obtained where the applicant company's registered office and postal address were on record at the Uganda Registration Services Bureau since before the suit was filed, and where the respondents' counsel had prior knowledge of the applicant's directors through previous representation. The court found that no reasonable effort to effect personal service was made before seeking substituted service. The ex parte order and substituted service order were set aside, and the applicant was granted leave to file a defence within fifteen days.

Outcome

Ex parte proceedings set aside; matter to proceed inter-partes with applicant granted leave to file defence

Facts

The respondents filed Civil Suit No. 146 of 2019 against the applicant company for recovery of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 243 Plot 2123 at Luzira. The applicant claimed it only recently learned of the suit and that it had been proceeded with ex parte. The respondents had obtained an order for substituted service by newspaper publication, alleging the applicant was a briefcase company with no traceable address. The applicant contended that its registered office at Plot 10, Jinja Road and postal address of P.O. Box 3009, Kampala had been on record at the Uganda Registration Services Bureau since March 2018, before the suit was filed in 2019. The applicant further alleged that the respondents' former counsel had represented the estate of the late Rev. Fr. Giovanni Scalabrini, a director and shareholder of the applicant company, and thus knew the applicant's whereabouts. The respondents were former volunteers or beneficiaries of Emmaus Foundation Trust, allegedly a charitable arm of the applicant, and the applicant claimed they had transferred their interests in the suit land to the applicant in April 2014.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has shown sufficient cause to set aside the ex-parte proceedings.
  2. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to file a defence out of time.

Orders

  • The order for substituted service and the order to proceed ex-parte in HCCS No. 146 of 2019 are hereby set aside.
  • The Applicant is granted leave to file its Written Statement of Defence within fifteen (15) days from the date of this 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 — Substituted Service — Requirements for Granting Order
Substituted service under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Rules is an exceptional measure that should only be granted after all reasonable efforts to effect personal service have failed, and where a company's registered office and postal address are on record with the Uganda Registration Services Bureau, substituted service will not be properly obtained without evidence that service at the registered address was attempted.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders — Non-Service of Summons
Under Order 9 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a court may set aside an ex parte order where the applicant proves that summons were not duly served, and where substituted service was improperly obtained due to failure to make reasonable efforts at personal service, the ex parte proceedings will be set aside.
Civil Procedure — Right to Be Heard — Prima Facie Defence
In accordance with Article 126(2)(c) of the Constitution and the principle that substantive justice should not be sacrificed to technicalities, where a defendant demonstrates a prima facie defence raising triable issues, they should be allowed to be heard notwithstanding procedural irregularities.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (3)

  • M.B. Automobiles v Terreuzi [1970] EA 446
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] 2 EA 12
  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulamhussein Ilahib Virani and Another (SCCA 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_(Civil_Suit_No._146_of_2019;_Miscellaneous_Application_No._1307_of_2022)_[2026]_UGHCLD_42_(23_February_202
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.