Wakilii

Kantinti Apollo v Deo Ndaisaba and 2 Others [2026] UGHCLD 147

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion to set aside an ex parte (interlocutory) judgment, enlarge time to file a written statement of defence and defence to counterclaim, and validate a defence already filed, arising out of Civil Suit No. 1298 of 2023
Decision
Application dismissed in its entirety; ex parte judgment left undisturbed and the written statement of defence struck out from the record

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 dismissed an application to set aside an ex parte judgment and to enlarge time to file a defence. It held that service through ECCMIS is valid where a party has a registered account, and the burden lies on the party alleging non-service to prove system failure or non-receipt. An affidavit of service is prima facie but rebuttable evidence; video recordings are admissible under the Evidence Act and Electronic Transactions Act but serve a corroborative rather than conclusive role. Service having been validly effected and no reasonable explanation given for prolonged inaction, no sufficient cause was shown under Order 9 rule 27. A defence filed out of time without leave is irregular, incapable of validation, and was struck out.

Outcome

Application dismissed in its entirety; ex parte judgment left undisturbed and the written statement of defence struck out from the record

Facts

The applicant was the 1st defendant/counter-defendant in High Court Civil Suit No. 1298 of 2023 concerning a disputed sale of land. An interlocutory judgment was entered against him by the Registrar under Order 9 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules following his failure to file a defence. He applied to set aside that judgment, to enlarge time to file a defence and defence to counterclaim, and to validate a written statement of defence filed on 15 April 2025. He deposed that he was never served, that the affidavit of service was false, that the named process server was unknown to him and unlicensed, that he did not reside at the Kabowa address where service was allegedly effected, and that his signature on the summons and plaint was forged. The 1st respondent replied that service was personally effected at the applicant's Kabowa home, evidenced by an affidavit of service, a video recording served on a flash drive, and electronic service through ECCMIS, and that the applicant had attended a locus visit and had earlier filed Miscellaneous Application No. 035 of 2025, showing knowledge of the suit. The applicant's rejoinder affidavit and submissions were filed out of time and were disregarded.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant departed from his pleadings by introducing new facts in his affidavit in rejoinder and submissions.
  2. Whether there was effective service of summons and pleadings on the applicant, including service effected electronically through ECCMIS.
  3. Whether video evidence tendered in support of an affidavit of service is admissible and what weight it carries.
  4. Whether the ex parte judgment and decree should be set aside for sufficient cause.
  5. Whether time should be enlarged within which to file a written statement of defence and defence to the counterclaim, and whether a defence filed out of time without leave can be validated.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection on departure from pleadings is dismissed as misconceived.
  • The application for setting aside the ex parte judgment is dismissed.
  • The ex parte judgment against the 1st Defendant in Civil Suit No. 1298 of 2023 remains valid, subsisting and enforceable.
  • The application for enlargement of time within which to file a Written Statement of Defence and defence to the counterclaim is dismissed.
  • The Written Statement of Defence and reply to the counterclaim filed on 15 April 2025, having been filed without leave of Court and out of time, is struck out and expunged from the record.
  • The application for validation of the said Written Statement of Defence and defence to the counterclaim is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Electronic Service through ECCMIS
Where a party has a registered and active ECCMIS account, service effected through the system in accordance with established procedure constitutes valid service, and the burden lies on the party alleging non-service to demonstrate system failure, non-receipt or a credible technical irregularity affecting transmission or access.
Civil Procedure — Affidavit of Service — Prima Facie but Rebuttable Proof
An affidavit of service constitutes prima facie evidence of service but is not conclusive; it must be evaluated alongside the surrounding circumstances and may be rebutted by credible evidence, proper service being a jurisdictional prerequisite to valid proceedings conducted in default of appearance.
Evidence — Electronic Evidence — Admissibility and Weight of Video Recordings
Video recordings are admissible as primary evidence under section 61 of the Evidence Act read with sections 5 and 8 of the Electronic Transactions Act, subject to relevance and authenticity, but where the footage does not show service on the party personally its evidential role is corroborative rather than conclusive.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits and Submissions Filed Out of Time — Effect
An affidavit in rejoinder and submissions filed outside the timelines fixed by court and without leave are not properly before the court, cannot be relied on, and any challenge that could only have been raised through them fails.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment — Sufficient Cause under Order 9 rule 27
Where an ex parte judgment has been regularly obtained, the court will set it aside only where sufficient cause is shown, comprising a reasonable explanation for the default, promptness in applying, and a plausible defence; the discretion exists to relieve against accident or excusable mistake, not to assist a party who has deliberately or inexcusably failed to act.
Civil Procedure — Enlargement of Time — Defence Filed Without Leave
A written statement of defence filed out of time without prior leave of court is irregular and incapable of validation, and administrative endorsement by the Registrar does not cure the defect; enlargement of time under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act requires sufficient cause assessed by reference to the length of and reason for delay, the applicant's conduct and prejudice to the other party.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Departure from Pleadings under Order 6 rule 7
A party may not depart from its pleadings by introducing new or inconsistent facts without amendment, but where the affidavit alleged to contain the departure has itself been disallowed, an objection founded on that departure is misconceived.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (15)

  • Mubangizi v Gumisa and Others (Civil Suit No. 21 of 2019)
  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1992)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority Vs Uganda Custodian Properties Ltd (1997) HCB
  • Rashida Abdul Karim v Suleiman Adrisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 09 of 2017)
  • Western Uganda Cotton Company v Asaba and 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 353 of 2009)
  • Kateregga Zadoki v The Presbyterian Church in Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 213 of 2024)
  • Visare Uganda Ltd v Katerega t/a Quickway Auctioneers and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2855 of 2023)
  • Nakiganda Deborah and Others v Muyingo Tonny (Miscellaneous Application No. 2522 of 2024)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Transport Company Ltd and Another (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2003)
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji Gulam Kaggwa (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1992)
  • Sebei District Administration Vs Gasyali [1968] EA 300
  • Tibamwenda v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2003)
  • Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Abubaker Sebalamu Ganya v Yasmin Nalwoga (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2017)
  • In re Estate of the Late Atwiine Sharon (Administration Cause No. 315 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kantinti Apollo v Deo Ndaisaba and 2 Others [2026] UGHCLD 147 (22 April 2026)
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.