Wakilii

Katabazi Dassy v Kizza James and Another (Miscellaneous Application 20 of 2025) 2026 UGHC 619 (2026-05-29)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 619 Application Granted with Terms AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte orders arising from civil suit
Decision
Ex parte orders set aside with conditions requiring payment of UGX 10,000,000 into court before defence proceeds

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

Court granted the application to set aside ex parte orders on finding the applicant barely met the sufficient cause test under Order IX Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Although the applicant had participated in proceedings and withdrew instructions from his counsel, the court found he was ignorant of the consequences of his deliberate actions. The setting aside was granted on terms including payment of security for costs and payment into court totalling UGX 10,000,000.

Outcome

Ex parte orders set aside with conditions requiring payment of UGX 10,000,000 into court before defence proceeds

Facts

The applicant brought an application to set aside an ex parte order issued on May 16, 2025 in HCCS No. 13 of 2023, arising from a boundary dispute between neighbouring plots at Komukonyo Lane. The respondents were registered proprietors of Plot 3. A joint survey was conducted on May 12, 2025, revealing that the applicant's boundary wall encroached onto the respondents' land by 5.4 square meters and a hedge wrongly enclosed 45 square meters of the respondents' plot. On May 13, 2025, court made orders requiring the applicant to remove the boundary wall and hedge by May 19, 2025, failing which contempt fines would accumulate at UGX 100,000 per day. The applicant removed the hedge but refused to demolish the boundary wall, claiming he could not break a wall on land he did not own. The applicant was unrepresented at the May 13, 2025 hearing having withdrawn instructions from his counsel.

Issues

  1. Whether the application to set aside the ex-parte orders of this honourable court should be granted?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application to set aside ex-parte judgment granted.
  • Applicant to deposit UGX 5,000,000 as security for costs within 30 days from the date of this order.
  • Applicant to deposit UGX 5,000,000 as further payment into court from the applicant to defend the suit within 30 days from the date of this order.
  • Hearing of the main suit to resume immediately after deposit of the sums in 1 and 2 above into court.
  • Costs of the application will abide the determination of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders — Sufficient Cause Test
An applicant seeking to set aside an ex parte order under Order IX Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules must demonstrate sufficient cause for non-appearance, which may include mistake by an advocate, ignorance of procedure by an unrepresented defendant, or illness, but deliberate withdrawal of instructions from counsel and ignorance of the consequences of one's own actions barely meets this test.
Civil Procedure — Terms for Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders — Court's Discretionary Power
Where a court exercises its discretion under Order IX Rule 27 to set aside an ex parte order, it may impose terms including payment into court, security for costs, or otherwise as it thinks fit to meet the ends of justice, taking into account the circumstances including partial compliance with prior orders and pending execution applications.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (4)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Katabazi Dassy v Kizza James and Another (Miscellaneous Application 20 of 2025) 2026 UGHC 619 (2026-05-29)
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.