Wakilii

Innocent Nuriat v Alliance In Motion Global (U) Ltd (Civil Suit 619 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 433 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Summary suit for debt recovery with application for default judgment
Decision
Default judgment entered for the plaintiff in the sum of UGX 75,000,000 with costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Commercial Division entered default judgment against the defendant for UGX 75 million in a summary suit. The court held that the defendant was properly served with summons but failed to file the requisite application for leave to defend within the prescribed period as required by Order 36 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The defendant's focus on settlement negotiations rather than compliance with procedural requirements did not excuse the failure to seek leave to defend.

Outcome

Default judgment entered for the plaintiff in the sum of UGX 75,000,000 with costs

Facts

The plaintiff filed a summary suit against the defendant company in May 2025 claiming UGX 75 million. Summons were issued on 1 June 2025 and service was effected on 2 June 2025 on Namatovu Aisha, and subsequently on the Vice President and Dr Drakon, both directors of the defendant company. Service was effected through multiple means including WhatsApp, email, and Viber. The court directed substituted service which was undertaken. The defendant engaged in informal mediation which failed. The defendant did not file an application for leave to defend within the prescribed period. When the matter came for hearing, the defendant's counsel sought indulgence to file a defence, arguing that initial service was ineffective. The plaintiff applied for default judgment.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant was properly served with summons to warrant entry of default judgment.
  2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to default judgment under Order 36 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Default judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff.
  • Judgment sum of Uganda shillings 75,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Leave to Defend — Order 36 Rule 3
Under Order 36 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a defendant in a summary suit is not entitled to appear and defend except upon applying for and obtaining leave from the court, and such application must be made within the period fixed by the summons served upon the defendant.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Default Judgment — Entitlement
Where a defendant in a summary suit fails to file an application for leave to defend within the prescribed period, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for an amount not exceeding the claim in the plaint.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Effectiveness of Service
A defendant who has been properly notified about a case through effective service of summons and has engaged in settlement discussions cannot later claim ineffective service to excuse failure to comply with procedural requirements for filing a defence.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Innocent Nuriat v Alliance In Motion Global (U) Ltd (Civil Suit 619 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 433 (3 November 2025)
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.