Wakilii

Kantinti Apollo v Deo Ndaisaba and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 1500 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 147 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte judgment, enlarge time to file defence, and validate defence filed out of time
Decision
Ex parte judgment upheld; applicant's defence struck out; application dismissed in its entirety

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 the application to set aside an ex parte judgment and refused to enlarge time for filing a defence. The court found that service of summons was duly effected through both physical delivery and electronic service via ECCMIS, and that the applicant had failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for his default. The court held that electronic service through ECCMIS constitutes valid service unless system failure is demonstrated, and that video evidence corroborating service was admissible under the Evidence Act and Electronic Transactions Act.

Outcome

Ex parte judgment upheld; applicant's defence struck out; application dismissed in its entirety

Facts

The applicant was the 1st defendant in a land suit. An ex parte judgment was entered against him after he failed to file a defence. He applied to set aside the judgment, claiming he was never served with summons and only learned of the suit when the 2nd defendant informed police. He denied residing at the address where service was allegedly effected (Kabowa), stating he lived in Kitezi, Lusanja. He challenged the affidavit of service as false, claimed the process server was unlicensed and unknown to him, and alleged his signature was forged. The respondents produced video evidence showing service at the Kabowa premises and argued the applicant had knowledge of the suit, evidenced by his late attendance at a locus visit. The applicant filed his defence out of time without leave and sought validation.

Issues

  1. Whether there was effective service on the Applicant.
  2. Whether the ex parte judgment and decree should be set aside.
  3. Whether time should be enlarged within which to file a Written Statement of Defence and defence to the counterclaim.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • 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 15th 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

Service of Process — Electronic Service via ECCMIS — Validity
Service effected through the Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS) constitutes valid and effective service where a party has a registered and active account, unless system failure, non-receipt, or credible technical irregularity affecting transmission or access is demonstrated.
Electronic Evidence — Video Recordings — Admissibility
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, which accord electronic records the same legal status as physical documents, subject to the court being satisfied as to relevance and authenticity.
Service of Process — Affidavit of Service — Evidential Weight
An affidavit of service constitutes prima facie evidence of service but remains rebuttable upon credible evidence. The court must carefully evaluate affidavits of service alongside surrounding circumstances, as they are not conclusive.
Ex Parte Judgments — Setting Aside — Sufficient Cause
Where an ex parte judgment is regularly obtained, the court exercises discretion to set it aside only upon demonstration of sufficient cause, which includes a reasonable explanation for default, promptness in making the application, and the existence of a plausible defence on the merits. The discretion is intended to avoid injustice from accident or excusable mistake, not to assist a party who has deliberately failed to act.
Extension of Time — Filing Defence Out of Time — Requirements
The court's discretion to enlarge time under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act must be exercised judicially upon demonstration of sufficient cause, considering the length of delay, the reason for delay, the conduct of the applicant, and whether prejudice will be occasioned to the other party. A defence filed out of time without leave of court is irregular and incapable of validation.
Pleadings — Departure from Pleadings — Rejoinder Affidavits
A party may not depart from its pleadings by introducing new or inconsistent facts without amendment. Where a rejoinder affidavit is filed out of time and without leave, it is not properly before the court and cannot be relied upon in determining an application.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (15)

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

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_(Miscellaneous_Application_1500_of_2025)_[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.