Fracht Uganda SMC Ltd v Lochab Transport Ltd [2025] UGCOMMC 536

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.

Holding

The court granted the plaintiff's application for default judgment after the defendant failed to file a written statement of defence within the statutory period despite attempts at personal service and substituted service. Default judgment was entered pursuant to Order 36 rules 2(1), 2(2), 3(1) and 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Default judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff following defendant's failure to file defence

Facts

The plaintiff filed a civil suit against the defendant in the Commercial Division. The plaintiff attempted to serve the defendant both in person and through substituted service. Despite successful service, the defendant failed to file a written statement of defence within the statutory period prescribed by the Civil Procedure Rules. The plaintiff then moved the court for an order of default judgment.

Issues

1. Whether default judgment should be entered against the defendant following their failure to file a written statement of defence within the statutory period after service

Orders

• Default judgment entered against the defendant pursuant to Order 36 rule 2(1) and (2) and rule 3(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (4)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 rule 2(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 rule 2(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 rule 3(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 rule 3(2)

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