Wakilii

Kagaba Moses v Elizabeth Bamwine (Miscellaneous Application 48 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 682 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte judgment entered by Deputy Registrar in underlying land suit
Decision
Ex parte judgment set aside; underlying land suit to be heard de novo with defendants to file defences within 21 days

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 held that a Deputy Registrar acted without jurisdiction when entering ex parte judgment in a land suit. Under Order 9 rules 10 and 11(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the power to order a suit to proceed ex parte where no defence is filed is reserved to the trial Judge, not the Registrar. The Registrar's jurisdiction under Order 50 is limited to expressly prescribed auxiliary matters. The ex parte judgment was accordingly set aside as a nullity and the matter ordered to be heard de novo.

Outcome

Ex parte judgment set aside; underlying land suit to be heard de novo with defendants to file defences within 21 days

Facts

The respondent instituted a land suit (HCT-06-LD-CS-0028-2024) against the applicant and two others for trespass on land described as Buddu Block 475, plot 11. Summons were issued on 21 March 2024. The applicant contended he was never served with summons. The respondent claimed service was effected through the LC1 Chairperson whom the applicant had authorised to receive documents. On 17 June 2024, the Deputy Registrar entered ex parte judgment after noting that the applicant had directed service through the LC1 Chairperson and had not filed a defence. The applicant then brought this application to set aside the ex parte judgment on grounds of non-service and failure to disclose a cause of action.

Issues

  1. Whether the ex parte judgment entered by the learned Deputy Registrar of this court in HCT-06-LD-CS-0028-2024 was properly entered.

Orders

  • The ex parte judgment made by the learned Deputy Registrar of this court in HCT-06-LD-CS-0028-2024 on 17th June 2024 is set aside.
  • HCT-06-LD-CS-0028-2024 shall be heard de novo.
  • The Defendants in HCT-06-LD-CS-0028-2024 shall file their respective defences within 21 days from the date of this ruling.
  • Should the Plaintiff in HCT-06-LD-CS-0028-2024 wish to make a reply, she shall do so within 15 days after being served with the Defendants' defences.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs for this application.
  • The application partially succeeds.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction of Registrars — Limits on Powers to Enter Ex Parte Judgment
The jurisdiction of Registrars of the High Court is restricted to matters expressly provided for under Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules and powers ancillary or incidental thereto. The power to order a suit to proceed ex parte where no defence is filed under Order 9 rules 10 and 11(2) is reserved to the trial Judge and does not fall within the auxiliary jurisdiction of a Registrar.
Administrative Law — Jurisdiction — Acting Without Jurisdiction — Nullity
Where a court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction, whatever is decided by it is a nullity. Jurisdiction is everything to a court of law; without it, a court cannot proceed to take any further step in any matter.
Civil Procedure — Illegality — Duty of Court to Raise Suo Motu
A court of law cannot sanction what is illegal. An illegality once brought to the attention of the court by either party or suo motu overrides all questions of pleadings, including any admission thereof. Where litigants fail to take point of an illegality, it is the duty of the court when asked to give a judgment contrary to statute to take the point.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Judgment — Proper Procedure Where No Defence Filed
Under Order 9 rules 10 and 11(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, where a defendant fails to file a defence within the time allowed, the plaintiff may set down the suit for hearing ex parte. This power to order the suit to proceed ex parte is the preserve of the trial Judge, not the Registrar.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Judicature Act Cap 16 s.37
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI-71-1 Order 9 rule 10
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI-71-1 Order 9 rule 11(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI-71-1 Order 9 rule 12
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI-71-1 Order 5 rule 1(3)
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI-71-1 Order 7 rule 11(a)
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI-71-1 Order 50
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI-71-1 Order 50 rule 7
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI-71-1 Order 52 rules 1 & 3

Cases cited (5)

  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Phillips vs Copping (1935) 1 KB 15
  • Elizabeth Kyomuhangi v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2020)
  • Owners of Motor vessel Lillian "s" vs Caltex Oil Kenya Limited [1989] KLR 1
  • Florence Dawaru v Angumale Albino (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 96 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kagaba Moses v Elizabeth Bamwine (Miscellaneous Application 48 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 682 (18 August 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.