Wakilii

Goldmine Finance Limited v Kato (Miscellaneous Application 2896 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 32 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte judgment entered in Civil Suit No. 514 of 2021
Decision
Ex parte judgment set aside; matter fixed for inter partes hearing

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 granted the application to set aside the ex parte judgment. The Court held that where a case was filed before the rollout of ECCMIS and counsel were not linked to the system by the hearing date, this constituted sufficient cause under Order 9 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Court found that negligence of counsel ought not to be visited on an innocent litigant, and that it was the Court's duty to ensure fair administration of justice to all parties.

Outcome

Ex parte judgment set aside; matter fixed for inter partes hearing

Facts

The Respondent instituted Civil Suit No. 514 of 2021 against the Applicant and two others seeking declarations of illegality, breach of contract, negligence, and damages for the loss of a motor vehicle. The Applicant filed a written statement of defence and attended court sessions until 31 October 2022, when the Trial Judge indicated that a ruling on a preliminary objection would be delivered on notice. The case was subsequently migrated to ECCMIS. On 10 October 2023, the suit proceeded to hearing ex parte in the Applicant's absence, and judgment was entered against them. The Applicant contended that they were never served with the hearing notice via ECCMIS and only learned of the judgment afterwards when notified by the Respondent. The Applicant brought this application to set aside the ex parte judgment, arguing that their contact details had not been linked to ECCMIS by the hearing date and that they had shown consistent interest in defending the suit.

Issues

  1. Whether Counsel Busingye Michael's affidavit in reply to the application is fatally defective?
  2. Whether Counsel Rola Birungi Mugabe's affidavit in support of the application is fatally defective?
  3. Whether there is sufficient cause to set aside the ex parte judgment/decree entered in Civil Suit No. 514 of 2021?
  4. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • The ex parte judgment/decree entered against the Applicant in Civil Suit No. 514 of 2021 is hereby set aside.
  • Civil Suit No. 514 of 2021 is hereby fixed for hearing inter parties on 19th March, 2024 at 9:00am.
  • Costs of the application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting aside ex parte judgments — Sufficient cause — ECCMIS transition — Cases filed before system rollout
Where a case was filed before the rollout of ECCMIS and counsel's contact details were not linked to the electronic case management system by the date of hearing, this constitutes sufficient cause under Order 9 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules to set aside an ex parte judgment entered in counsel's absence.
Civil Procedure — Negligence of counsel — Effect on litigant — Fair hearing right
Negligence of counsel ought not to be visited on an innocent litigant unless the litigant is privy to the default or the default results from the failure on the part of the litigant to give the advocate due instructions. It is the legal obligation of the Court to ensure the expeditious and fair administration of justice to all parties in legal proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Advocates deponing affidavits — Capacity to act — Order 3 Rule 1 CPR
Under Order 3 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, an advocate duly appointed to act on behalf of a client has legal capacity to swear an affidavit in support of an application on behalf of that client. Where an advocate discloses in the affidavit that they are working with the law firm instructed by the applicant, this is sufficient disclosure of capacity and no further evidence is required.
Civil Procedure — Advocates as witnesses — Regulation 9 Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations — Non-contentious matters — Exception
Regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations does not prevent an advocate from giving evidence by affidavit on a formal or non-contentious matter or fact in a matter in which they act or appear. An advocate may swear an affidavit containing facts that are formal, lay out the court record, or are within the advocate's knowledge and do not involve contentious matters requiring cross-examination.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (11)

  • Uganda Development Bank v Kasirye, Byaruhanga and Co. Advocates (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1994)
  • Mbarara Municipal Council v Jetha Brothers Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2021)
  • Electro-Maxx Uganda Ltd v Oryx Oil Uganda Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 251 of 2020)
  • Black Market Records v Malinga Sulaiman and 3 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 2788 of 2023)
  • MHK Engineering Services (U) Ltd v MacDowell Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 825 of 2018)
  • Florence Nabatanzi v Naome Binsobedde (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1987)
  • Hikima Kyamanywa v Sajjabi Chris (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2006)
  • Mwesigye Nicholas v P & A Credit Investments Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1677 of 2022)
  • Zam Nalumansi v Sulaiman Lule (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1992)
  • Ggoloba Godfrey v Harriet Kizito (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2006)
  • Andre Bamanya v Sham Sherali Zaver (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2001)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Goldmine Finance Limited v Kato (Miscellaneous Application 2896 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 32 (26 February 2024)
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.