Wakilii

Kaddu v Kaddu (Miscellaneous Application 86 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCFD 194 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside default judgment in divorce proceedings arising from Divorce Cause No. 02 of 2018
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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 2 times 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 dismissed an application to set aside a default judgment in divorce proceedings. The applicant failed to satisfy the requirements of Order 9 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules, having neither shown that summons were not duly served nor demonstrated sufficient cause for non-appearance. The court found the supporting affidavit gravely defective under Order 19 Rule 3(1) CPR as it did not confine itself to facts within the deponent's own knowledge. The applicant's counsel's repeated failure to file proper replies despite multiple opportunities constituted abuse of court leniency rather than justifiable cause for setting aside the judgment.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Facts

John Kaddu Bwabye and Teddy Kyeyune Kaddu married in 1996 and have two adult children. The parties jointly owned matrimonial property and both worked in the United Kingdom. John petitioned for divorce in 2018 on grounds of cruelty. Teddy filed a cross-petition alleging cruelty and adultery and disputed the ownership status of certain matrimonial property. The parties entered a partial consent settlement in August 2018, leaving one property issue to be resolved by the court. Teddy successfully applied to amend her cross-petition in July 2019. Despite multiple opportunities and extensions of time granted by the court, John's various counsel failed to file a proper reply to the amended cross-petition. On 28 March 2022, counsel filed a reply that was not verified by John himself. The court struck out the defective reply and entered a default judgment. Formal proof hearing proceeded and judgment was delivered. John then applied to set aside the default judgment, bringing this miscellaneous application.

Issues

  1. Whether the Judgment and/or Decree and Orders of Court in Divorce Cause No. 02 of 2018 should be set aside.
  2. Whether Divorce Cause No. 02 of 2018 should be reinstated and heard on its own merits.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Requirements under Order 19 Rule 3(1) CPR — Facts within deponent's own knowledge
An affidavit must be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his or her own knowledge to prove. Where a deponent swears to facts not within his personal knowledge and fails to disclose the source of information, particularly where the deponent was demonstrably absent from events deposed to, the affidavit is gravely defective under Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Setting aside judgments — Order 9 Rule 27 CPR — Default judgment vs ex parte judgment
Order 9 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies to ex parte judgments where a defendant filed a defence but was absent at hearing. It does not apply to default judgments entered where no defence or reply was on record. An applicant seeking to set aside a judgment under Order 9 Rule 27 must satisfy the court that summons were not duly served or that he was prevented from appearing by sufficient cause.
Civil Procedure — Right to be heard — Abuse of court leniency — Multiple opportunities to file defence
While the right to be heard is constitutionally guaranteed and courts should exercise leniency, repeated failure by a party's counsel to file proper pleadings despite multiple extensions of time and opportunities constitutes abuse of court leniency. Such abuse does not constitute sufficient cause for setting aside a default judgment under Order 9 Rule 27 CPR.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (1)

  • National Enterprises Corporation v Mukisa Foods Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1997)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Kaddu v Kaddu (Miscellaneous Application 86 of 2023) [2023] UGHCFD 194 (5 October 2023)
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.