Wakilii

James Mwangushya Driers v Centenary Rural Development Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1802 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 139 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside default judgment and for leave to appear and defend arising from Civil Suit No. 1145 of 2024
Decision
Application dismissed for lack of merit; default judgment in Civil Suit No. 1145 of 2023 stands

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

Held that the application to set aside default judgment failed on preliminary grounds for non-service within 21 days as required by Order 5 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. On the merits, the court found that service via WhatsApp was effective where the summons was sent to the applicant's registered number and showed blue ticks indicating delivery and reading. The applicant failed to demonstrate a plausible defence by not attaching a draft defence or providing sufficient particulars. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed for lack of merit; default judgment in Civil Suit No. 1145 of 2023 stands

Facts

The applicant obtained two loans totalling UGX 328,000,000 from the respondent bank in 2019, securing them with his home valued at UGX 590,000,000. He defaulted during COVID-19 and requested rescheduling, which was denied. The bank foreclosed and sold the property for UGX 350,000,000, leaving an outstanding balance of UGX 128,014,109. The bank filed Civil Suit No. 1145 of 2023 and obtained default judgment. The applicant applied to set aside the judgment, claiming improper service, though the summons had been sent via WhatsApp to his registered number. The application was filed on 13 November 2024 with hearing set for 27 November 2024. The respondent contended that service of the application itself was effected outside the mandatory 21-day period under Order 5 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to warrant setting aside the default judgment entered by this Honorable Court in Civil Suit No. 1145 of 2023?
  2. Whether there are sufficient grounds for leave to appear and defend the suit to be granted?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Time Limits — Mandatory Compliance with 21-Day Requirement
Where an application is not served within 21 days from the date of issuance as required by Order 5 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and no extension of time is sought within 15 days after expiration, the application is liable to dismissal without notice regardless of its merits.
Evidence — Affidavit Evidence — Failure to File Rejoinder — Effect of Non-Rebuttal
Where an applicant fails to file an affidavit in rejoinder to controvert averments made in a respondent's affidavit in reply, the applicant is deemed to have admitted the facts deposed to by the respondent and cannot later challenge them.
Civil Procedure — Electronic Service — WhatsApp Messenger — Validity and Effectiveness
Service of court process via WhatsApp messenger is effective service under Rule 7(2)(c) of the Constitution (Integration of ICT into the Adjudication Processes for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, Legal Notice No. 6 of 2019, where the message is sent to the defendant's registered number and shows blue ticks indicating delivery and reading.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Default Judgment — Burden of Proof on Service
Where a defendant seeking to set aside a default judgment denies receipt of summons served electronically, the onus is on the sender or process server to prove that the summons was delivered to the intended recipient.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Defend — Requirements — Need for Draft Defence and Particulars
An applicant seeking leave to appear and defend must not only state that he has a plausible defence but must demonstrate it by attaching a draft defence and providing sufficient particulars in the supporting affidavit to enable the court to assess prima facie whether the defence is plausible.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (21)

  • Bet City (U) Limited & Jamal Sultan v Swangz Avenue (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1177 of 2020)
  • Micheal Mulo Mulagussi v Peter Katabalo (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 006 of 2016)
  • Kanyabwera v Tumwebwa (2005) 2 EA 86
  • Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • M.M Sheikh Dawood v Kenshwala and Sons (High Court Civil Suit No. 14 of 2009)
  • TUI UK Ltd (Respondents) v Griffiths (Appellant) [2023] UKSC 48
  • Mbogo v Shah (1968) EA 93
  • Nicholas Rousos Rousos v Gulam Hussein Virani and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • Patel v E.A Cargo Handling Services (1974) EA 76
  • Abela and others v. Baadarani, Trinity Term (2013) UKSC 44
  • Gray v. Hurley [2019] EWHC 1636 (QB)
  • Male H. Mabirizi v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 918 of 2021)
  • Musumba Isaac Isanga v Quid Financials Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 139 of 2020)
  • Nyanzi Fred Sentamu v The Electoral Commission and 2 others (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2021)
  • Peace Barigye v Rosemary Kizza Omamteker (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 2075 of 2022)
  • Saw v Hakim 5 TLR 72
  • Ray v Barker 4 Ex DI 279
  • Churanjilal & Co. v A. H. Adam (1950) 17 EACA 92
  • Hasmani v Banque du Congo Belge (1938) 5 EACA 89
  • Pamela Anyoti v Root Capital Inc (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 844 of 2023)
  • Ecobank Uganda Limited v Kalson's Agrovet Concern Ltd & Anor (High Court Civil Suit No. 573 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

James Mwangushya Driers v Centenary Rural Development Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1802 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 139 (31 March 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.