Kiggwe v Babirye and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 910 of 2021)
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 the application to set aside an ex parte judgment. The court held that the applicant had been duly served through his former counsel who acknowledged receipt of mediation notices in September 2015, and through substituted service at his home via the LC1 Chairman. The applicant's failure to file a defence despite being served, and his delay of six years before challenging the judgment, demonstrated a lack of vigilance. The court found that the applicant had not shown sufficient cause to warrant setting aside the judgment, particularly where the orders had already been executed through cancellation of the title.
Outcome
Application to set aside ex parte judgment dismissed; ex parte judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 309 of 2015 remain in force
Facts
The respondents filed Civil Suit No. 309 of 2015 seeking declarations that land comprised in Kyadondo Block 245, plot 259 at Kiwuliriza had been illegally subdivided creating plots 494 and 495, and that registration in the names of the applicant and one Ronald Dennis Dujang was illegal. Summons to file a defence were sealed on 30 April 2015. The applicant's former counsel M/s Luzige, Lubega, Kavuma & Co. Advocates acknowledged receipt of mediation notices on 16 September 2015. When the applicant failed to appear, ex parte judgment was entered in favour of the respondents. The applicant claimed he only learned of the judgment on 7 May 2021 when tenants informed him of potential buyers visiting the land. The certificate of title for plot 494 had been cancelled pursuant to the court's orders. The applicant filed this application on the grounds that he had not been duly served and had been denied his right to be heard.
Issues
- Whether the applicant was duly served with summons to file a defence in Civil Suit No. 309 of 2015.
- Whether sufficient cause has been shown to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree entered in Civil Suit No. 309 of 2015.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondents.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (6)
Cases cited (12)
- Lawrence Musitwa Kyaze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 78 of 1990)
- Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
- Joseph Mulenga v Photo Focus (U) Ltd (1999) 1 KALR 79
- Dr. Byarugaba v Nantarwa (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 229 of 2019)
- Erukana Omuchilo v Ayub Mudindi [1966] EA 229
- Lucas Marisa v Uganda Breweries Ltd (1988-1990) HCB 131
- Mary Kyotawabi v Ahmed Zirandemu (Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1979)
- Zamu Namunsi v Samwiri Mule (Court of Appeal No. 2 of 1992)
- Nicholas Roussos v Gulamhussein Habib Virani and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
- National Insurance Corporation v Mugenyi and Company Advocates [1987] HCB 28
- Kirya Grace Wanzala v Daudi Migereko and Another (Election Reference Appeal No. 39 of 2012)
- David Kato Luguza and Another v Evelyn Nakafeero and Another (Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2011)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.