First Group Limited and Others v Eco Bank Uganda Limited (Civil Suit No. 0757 of 2024; Miscellaneous Application No. 0365 of 2025)
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 set aside a default judgment in a summary suit for loan recovery, finding that service of summons was not effective. The process server's affidavit contained uncontroverted errors regarding the applicants' telephone numbers, meaning the defendants did not become aware of the summons. The court also found that the applicants' denial of the amount claimed constituted good cause to grant leave to defend, as there was a reasonable ground of defence.
Outcome
Default judgment set aside; 3rd Applicant released from civil prison; applicants granted extended time to apply for leave to defend
Facts
The respondent bank filed a summary suit on 19 June 2024 seeking recovery of USD 174,774 from the applicants arising from an alleged breach of a loan agreement dated 23 August 2022 and personal guarantees. The bank claimed the 1st applicant had been granted a facility of USD 150,000, fully disbursed on 6 September 2022, secured by a 30% cash margin, domiciliation of UN contract proceeds, and personal guarantees by the 2nd and 3rd applicants. The process server swore affidavits stating he could not locate the defendants at the address in the credit facility agreement and attempted substituted service via email and WhatsApp to a telephone number found on the company website. The court entered default judgment on 8 November 2024 for USD 174,774 with 25% interest per annum. The 3rd applicant was subsequently imprisoned for non-payment. The applicants challenged service, stating the telephone number used by the process server did not belong to any of them, and disputed both the amount claimed and the authenticity of the 2nd applicant's signature on the guarantee.
Issues
- Whether the Applicants have raised sufficient grounds for the reliefs sought?
- What remedies are available?
Orders
- The Default Judgment in Summary Suit No. 757 of 2024 is set aside.
- The execution of the Decree in Summary Suit No. 757 of 2024 is set aside.
- The 3rd Applicant shall be released unconditionally from Luzira Civil Prison.
- The time within which to file an application for leave to appear and defend is enlarged to 10 days from this order.
- Costs of this application shall be in the cause.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 9 Rule 27
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rules 1, 2 & 3
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 36 Rule 3(1)
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 36 Rule 3(2)
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 36 Rule 11
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 15 Rule 3
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 5 Rule 9
- Evidence Act Cap 8 s.101
- Evidence Act Cap 8 s.103
Cases cited (3)
- Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General (SCCA No. 28 of 1993)
- Geoffrey Gatete and Another v William Kyobe [2007] UGSC 7
- Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 63
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.