Wakilii

Kayonza Growers Tea Factory Limited v Uni Movers & Logistics Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2404 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 435 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside default judgment and orders dismissing earlier application for leave to appear and defend
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 entered after counsel failed to attend a hearing. The court found that counsel's claim of delayed ECCMIS notification was not a system error, as the same notifications were delivered to opposing counsel. The court held that counsel failed to exercise due diligence and could not shift blame to the court system. The default judgment was proper under Order 36 Rule 5 where counsel failed to attend on the hearing date.

Outcome

Application to set aside default judgment dismissed; default judgment stands

Facts

The Applicant instructed counsel to file an application for leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 1011 of 2023, filed on 15 September 2023. The application was initially fixed for 10 July 2024, but the judge was indisposed. Counsel was advised by the clerk to return on 12 November 2024. However, the matter was actually scheduled for 6 November 2024. Counsel claimed she received a belated ECCMIS notification on 6 November 2024 at 12:38 PM, after the hearing time. The Respondent produced evidence showing that hearing notifications for 6 November 2024 were sent on 24 September 2024 to both parties. Counsel for the Applicant failed to attend the hearing on 6 November 2024, resulting in dismissal of the application and entry of default judgment.

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 — Setting Aside Default Judgment — Order 36 Rule 11 — Good Cause
Under Order 36 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a court may set aside a default judgment if satisfied that service was not effective or for any other good cause. The phrase 'any other good cause' must relate to the inability or failure to take a particular step in time, which depends on the circumstances of each case.
Civil Procedure — Burden of Proof — Sufficient Cause
Whoever alleges a given fact and desires the court to give judgment on any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he or she asserts has the burden to prove those facts unless it is provided by law that the proof shall lie on another person.
Civil Procedure — Counsel's Duty of Diligence — System-Generated Notifications
Where system-generated hearing notifications are sent to both parties' counsel, a claim by one counsel of delayed receipt cannot constitute good cause for setting aside a default judgment where the counsel failed to exercise due diligence and attend the scheduled hearing.
Commercial Law — Order 36 Procedure — Purpose and Policy
Order 36 was enacted to facilitate expeditious disposal of cases involving debts and contracts of a commercial nature, and to prevent defendants from presenting frivolous or vexatious defences to unreasonably prolong litigation.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (7)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kayonza Growers Tea Factory Limited v Uni Movers & Logistics Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2404 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 435 (25 November 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.