Wakilii

Kato Contractors Ltd and Another v Stanbic Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 1763 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 490 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside judgment and decree entered after dismissal of leave to defend application in summary suit
Decision
Application to set aside judgment dismissed; judgment in HCCS No. 435 of 2025 stands

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 court held that Order 36 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies only to decrees arising from the preceding rules under Order 36, not to decrees entered under Order 17 Rule 4. Where a matter proceeds under Order 17 Rule 4, the only recourse is appeal. The applicants failed to demonstrate good cause for setting aside the decree, as service via ECCMIS was effective and counsel's negligence without proactive pursuit of the case by the litigant does not constitute sufficient grounds. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application to set aside judgment dismissed; judgment in HCCS No. 435 of 2025 stands

Facts

The respondent bank instituted a summary suit (HCCS No. 435 of 2025) against the applicants for UGX 1,853,513,767. The applicants filed an application for leave to appear and defend (Miscellaneous Application No. 928 of 2025). The respondent requested a hearing date, which was fixed for 1 July 2025 and notified via ECCMIS. The applicants did not appear at the hearing. The court dismissed the application under Order 17 Rule 4 and entered judgment for the respondent. The applicants claimed they were unaware of the hearing date because their former counsel, Mr. Andrew Wetaka, failed to check ECCMIS and notify them. The applicants engaged new counsel and filed the present application under Order 36 Rule 11 to set aside the judgment and decree.

Issues

  1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to warrant the setting aside of the judgment and decree in HCCS No. 435 of 2025.
  2. Whether there are sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of unconditional leave to appear and defend the suit.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Setting Aside Decree — Scope of Order 36 Rule 11
Order 36 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules empowers the court to set aside a decree arising from proceedings governed by the rules preceding Rule 11 within Order 36, but does not extend to a decree entered under Order 17 Rule 4.
Civil Procedure — Order 17 Rule 4 — Finality of Decree — Functus Officio
When a matter proceeds under Order 17 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, any order issued attains a degree of finality that precludes the same court from revisiting or setting aside its own decision. The only recourse available to an aggrieved party is to pursue an appeal.
Civil Procedure — Electronic Filing — Service via ECCMIS — Deemed Consent
When a registered user files a case or enters appearance through ECCMIS, they are deemed to have consented to receive all documents electronically. Service of hearing notices via ECCMIS constitutes effective service.
Civil Procedure — Negligence of Counsel — Litigant's Duty to Pursue Case
Negligence of counsel is not a magic wand. A litigant seeking to set aside a decree on grounds of counsel's negligence must demonstrate that they proactively pursued their case. Failure to engage counsel for updates or take steps to progress the case negates the claim of good cause.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (7)

  • S.R Petroleum Ltd v Solanki Haresh Vindray (HCMA No. 785 of 2015)
  • Godfrey Magezi and Brian Mbazire v Sudhir Ruparelia (SCCA No. 10 of 2002)
  • James Mansa Manyindo Paul and Others (HCMA No. 1052 of 2015)
  • Nicholas Rousses v Gulam Hussein Habib Virani and Another (SCCA No. 9 of 1993)
  • Maluku Interglobal v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 85
  • A.K. Transporters Ltd v Mulani Moosa [2025] UGHCCD 94
  • Pentecostal Assemblies of God Lira Limited v Pentecostal Assemblies of God Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 14 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kato Contractors Ltd and Another v Stanbic Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 1763 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 490 (31 October 2025)
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.