International Medical Link (IML) Uganda Limited v Registered Trustees of Mengo (Miscellaneous Application No. 2567 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 court dismissed an application to set aside an ex parte judgment where the applicant company was served at all stages of proceedings through its directors, company secretary, and former lawyers. Service on a company director or principal officer under Order 5 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules constitutes effective service. The company secretary was linked to ECCMIS and received all notifications. The applicant waived its right to be heard by repeatedly failing to appear despite multiple opportunities, including at the hearing of the application itself where counsel holding brief declined to make submissions.
Outcome
Application dismissed; ex parte judgment in Civil Suit No. 615 of 2022 stands
Facts
The applicant company sought to set aside an ex parte judgment entered in Civil Suit No. 615 of 2022. The respondent had initiated the suit in 2022 and served the applicant company throughout the three-year proceedings. Service was effected on the company directors (2nd to 4th applicants), the company secretary who was also the company lawyer (Bernard Ainamaani), and the applicant's former lawyers (Blair & Co. Advocates). The respondent produced multiple affidavits of service showing service at various stages: summons and plaint (1 August 2022), joint scheduling notices (12 December 2022), hearing notices (17 June 2024, 5 March 2024), taxation notices (4 July 2025), and notices of motion to pierce the corporate veil (6 September 2025). The company secretary was linked to the court's electronic case management system (ECCMIS). At the hearing of the application, the applicant's counsel holding brief declined to make oral submissions and requested to file written submissions instead, despite the court's direction that an ex tempore ruling would be delivered.
Issues
- Whether there was effective service of court process on the applicant company throughout the proceedings.
- Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause to set aside the ex parte judgment.
- Whether an advocate holding brief who declines to make oral submissions waives the client's right to be heard.
Orders
- Application to set aside the ex parte judgment in Civil Suit No. 615 of 2022 dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 Rule 3
- Constitution (Adjournments for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions Direction 8
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.