Kenfreight Uganda Limited v Kasirye (Civil Appeal 24 of 2022)

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.

Holding

The High Court Commercial Division held that the appeal was incompetent for want of jurisdiction. An appeal from an order dismissing an application under Order 9 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules is not a matter of right under Order 44 Rule 1 and requires leave of court under Order 44 Rule 2. Since the appellant did not obtain leave to appeal, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent on this preliminary ground, without consideration of the substantive grounds.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction; ex parte judgment in the lower court remains in place

Facts

The respondent sued the appellant in the Chief Magistrate's Court at Nakawa seeking to recover rental arrears and special damages for breach of contract. The appellant filed a written statement of defence on 14 December 2020. The respondent filed an amended plaint on 15 December 2020, served on the appellant on 28 December 2020. On 22 January 2021, the trial magistrate entered an ex parte judgment on the basis that no written statement of defence had been filed in response to the amended plaint. The appellant filed an amended written statement of defence on 28 January 2021, after the ex parte judgment. On 14 December 2021, the appellant applied to set aside the ex parte judgment under Order 9 Rule 12. On 30 May 2022, the Chief Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that the supporting affidavit contained falsehoods and hearsay. The appellant appealed that dismissal to the High Court Commercial Division without first obtaining leave to appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the appeal was competent without leave of court having been obtained under Order 44 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. Whether the trial magistrate erred in failing to set aside the ex parte judgment when two written statements of defence had been filed on the court record.
3. Whether the trial magistrate erred in dismissing the application on the basis of defects in the supporting affidavit rather than on the merits.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 Rule 5
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 Rule 12
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 44 Rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 44 Rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 51 Rule 4

Cases cited (3)

• Col. (Rtd) Besigye Kizza v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta & Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
• Attorney General Vs Shah [1970] E.A.
• Kilama and Another v Otim (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2019)

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