Kakooza Elias v Scaffold Systems Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 276 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
Held that substituted service of summons by newspaper advertisement without attaching the plaint does not comply with Order 5 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and is ineffective. The ex parte judgment and decree were set aside because the summons advertised did not include the plaint as required, and the applicant was not served with the hearing notice. The matter was remitted for hearing inter partes.
Outcome
Ex parte judgment and decree set aside; matter remitted for hearing inter partes
Facts
The respondent obtained an ex parte judgment and decree against the applicant in Civil Suit No. 1719 of 2023. The applicant learned of the proceedings only when served via WhatsApp by a bailiff with a warrant of arrest. The applicant contended that he was never properly served with summons or the hearing notice. The substituted service ordered by the court involved advertising the summons in a newspaper, but the plaint was not attached to the advertisement as required by the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant applied to set aside the ex parte judgment on grounds of defective service.
Issues
- Whether the substituted service of summons was effective where the plaint was not attached to the advertised summons.
- Whether the applicant was properly served with the hearing notice.
- Whether the ex parte judgment and decree should be set aside for defective service.
Orders
- The judgment in Civil Suit No. 1719 of 2023, Scaffold Systems Limited v Kakooza Elias, is hereby set aside.
- The execution proceedings arising out of the said judgment and decree are hereby set aside.
- The costs of the application shall be in the cause.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (8)
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 2
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 17
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 18(1)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 18(2)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 rule 20(1)(a)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 rule 27
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rules 1 and 3
Cases cited (6)
- Florence Nabatanzi v Naome Binsobodde (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 6 of 1987)
- Sipiriya Kyaturesire v Justine Bakachulike Bagambe (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1995)
- Valery Alia v Alionzi John (High Court Civil Suit No. 157 of 2010)
- Bitamisi Namuddu v Rwabuganda Godfrey (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2014)
- Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
- Geoffrey Gatete and Angela Maria Nakigonya v William Kyobe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.