Wakilii

Kayongo Bruno t a Kayongo Fashions v Namale Mary Galabuzi (Miscellaneous Application No. 1770 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 297 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside default judgment arising from Civil Suit No. 0246 of 2024
Decision
Application to set aside default judgment dismissed; default judgment 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 High Court dismissed an application to set aside a default judgment, finding that proper and effective service of summons had been effected on the applicant on 20 March 2024. The applicant's refusal to acknowledge service did not render service ineffective. The court held that service by WhatsApp on 21 March 2024 was proper where the case was electronically filed and parties' contact details were registered in the system, and that leave of court is only required for WhatsApp service where the case was not electronically filed.

Outcome

Application to set aside default judgment dismissed; default judgment stands

Facts

The respondent instituted Civil Suit No. 0246 of 2024 against the applicant for breach of an investment agreement, seeking to recover UGX 121,600,000. A court process server served the applicant with summons and plaint at his shop on 20 March 2024. The applicant refused to acknowledge service, citing ongoing settlement talks. The applicant was also served via WhatsApp on 21 March 2024. The court entered default judgment in favour of the respondent on 13 June 2024. The respondent subsequently filed execution proceedings. The applicant filed this application on 3 September 2024, claiming he first learned of the judgment when threatened with civil imprisonment. The applicant denied being properly served and contested the validity of WhatsApp service, arguing the summons had expired by 21 March 2024. The applicant also claimed there were triable issues concerning the actual debt owed.

Issues

  1. Whether this application discloses sufficient grounds for the grant of reliefs sought.
  2. What remedies are available.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Refusal to Acknowledge Service — Effect on Validity of Service
Where a defendant refuses to acknowledge service of summons when properly tendered, the court may declare the summons to have been duly served under Order 5 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the refusal does not render service ineffective.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Affidavit of Service — Requirements under Order 5 Rule 16
An affidavit of service complies with Order 5 Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules where it states the time when and manner in which the summons was served, and the name and address of the person who witnessed the delivery or tender of the summons.
Civil Procedure — Electronic Service — Service by WhatsApp — When Leave of Court Required
Where a case has been electronically filed through the Electronic Court Case Management System and parties have registered email addresses or telephone contacts in the system, service by WhatsApp or other electronic communication is automatic and does not require leave of court. Leave of court is only required for WhatsApp service where the case was not electronically filed.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Default Judgment — Grounds under Order 36 Rule 11
Under Order 36 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a court may set aside a default judgment if satisfied that service of summons was not effective, or for any other good cause. Where proper and effective service has been established, the application to set aside the default judgment will fail.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kayongo Bruno t a Kayongo Fashions v Namale Mary Galabuzi (Miscellaneous Application No. 1770 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 297 (14 May 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.