Kiwanuka v Sekimuli and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 2168 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
Held that an advocate's negligent failure to communicate a hearing date to a client constitutes sufficient cause under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules to set aside an ex parte judgment. The court rejected the applicant's jurisdictional challenge, affirming that the High Court has unlimited original jurisdiction under Article 139(1) of the Constitution regardless of where the subject matter is located. The ex parte judgment was set aside and the matter transferred to Mukono High Court Circuit in the interests of justice.
Outcome
Ex parte judgment set aside; matter transferred to Mukono High Court Circuit for inter partes hearing
Facts
The respondents instituted Civil Suit No. 12 of 2014 against the applicant seeking eviction, damages for trespass, and a permanent injunction. The applicant instructed M/s Bukenya Chemonges & Co. Advocates who filed a defence. Four of the seven original defendants entered into consent judgments with the plaintiffs. On 13 July 2020, almost two years after the last consent was endorsed, the plaintiffs appeared for directions regarding the three remaining defendants. The matter was fixed for hearing on 16 September 2020. The applicant's counsel was served with the hearing notice on 20 July 2020 but failed to communicate the hearing date to the applicant. The court proceeded ex parte and entered judgment on 28 November 2019. The applicant filed this application on 15 November 2021 to set aside the ex parte judgment, alleging his counsel's negligence and challenging the court's territorial jurisdiction.
Issues
- Whether there is sufficient cause to set aside the ex parte judgment?
Orders
- Ex parte judgment and decree of this court in Civil Suit No. 12 of 2014 is set aside.
- Civil Suit No. 12 of 2014 to be transferred to the Mukono High Court Circuit for hearing interparty.
- Costs in the cause.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
Cases cited (7)
- Male v Kayondo and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 47 of 2021)
- Buso Foundation v Bob Mate Phillips and Another (Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2009)
- Nicholas Roussos v Gulam Hussein Habib Virani and Another (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1995)
- Shabin Din v Ram Parkash Anand (1955) 22 EACA 48
- Zirabamuzaale v Correct (1962) EA 694
- Patel v Star Mineral Water and Ice Factory (1961) EA 454
- Mitha v Ladak (1960) EA 1054
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.