Wakilii

Katende t a Katende Stone Quary v Alifat Investiments (Miscellaneous Application No. 432 of 2014)

High Court · [2017] UGCOMMC 148 · 2017 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside default judgment entered in Civil Suit No. 378 of 2014
Decision
Application to set aside default judgment dismissed; default judgment stands; stay on taxation of bill of costs vacated.

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 a default judgment where the applicant alleged a mistake in acknowledging receipt of summons on a different date from actual service. The court found no mistake on record, noting that the affidavit of service and the summons both showed service on 10th June 2014. The applicant failed to prove sufficient cause under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The onus under section 102 of the Evidence Act was not discharged.

Outcome

Application to set aside default judgment dismissed; default judgment stands; stay on taxation of bill of costs vacated.

Facts

The applicant, Peter Katende trading as Katende Stone Quary, applied to set aside a default judgment entered against him on 9th July 2014 in Civil Suit No. 378 of 2014. The applicant alleged he was served with summons to file a defence on 4th July 2014 but mistakenly acknowledged receipt by writing 10th June 2014 as the date. He claimed he thought the acknowledgement date should match the summons issuance date and later approached the respondent's counsel to correct the dates. The respondent contended that service occurred on 10th June 2014, that the applicant was sober when receiving the summons, and that the alleged mistake was an afterthought never raised in the written statement of defence. Documentary evidence showed the summons bore two dates: 10th June 2014 (crossed out) and 4th July scribbled underneath. The affidavit of service was commissioned on 12th June 2014 and showed 10th June as the service date. The application for default judgment was dated 3rd July 2014.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established sufficient cause to set aside the default judgment entered on 9th July 2014.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.
  • Order of 15th June 2015 staying taxation vacated.

Rules and key headnotes

Setting Aside Default Judgment — Sufficient Cause — Burden of Proof
An applicant seeking to set aside a default judgment under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules bears the onus under section 102 of the Evidence Act to prove the existence of sufficient cause, which must relate to the inability or failure to take a necessary step at the right time.
Service of Process — Date of Service — Evidentiary Value of Affidavit of Service
The date appearing on a summons is taken to be the date it was actually received, and an affidavit of service serves as evidence of the date of service in the absence of credible evidence to the contrary.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (5)

  • Christine Namatovu Tebajjukira (IN RE) [1992-1993] HCB 85 87
  • Trust Bank Vs Portway Stores Ltd [2000] EA 296
  • Mugumya v Total (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 28 of 2013)
  • Roussos v Habib (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • Lucas Marisa Vs Uganda Breweries Ltd (1988-1990) HCB 131

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Katende t a Katende Stone Quary v Alifat Investiments (Miscellaneous Application No. 432 of 2014) [2017] UGCommC 148 (19 July 2017)
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.