Wakilii

Little Sisters of St.Francis v Sgt. Olinga (Misc. Applic. 23 of 2013)

High Court · [2014] UGHCCD 113 · 2014 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside reinstated ex parte judgment following failure to comply with security for costs order
Decision
Application to set aside reinstated ex parte judgment dismissed

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 has no jurisdiction to set aside or interfere with an order made by a judge of coordinate jurisdiction. A trial court that has exercised discretion cannot be asked to revisit that decision; the remedy lies in appeal to a higher court. On the merits, insufficient evidence was produced to show that the security for costs had been paid and deposited as ordered.

Outcome

Application to set aside reinstated ex parte judgment dismissed

Facts

The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 7 of 2007 initially at High Court Jinja and the file was transferred to Soroti High Court. An ex parte judgment was entered on 13 October 2009 by Justice Musota. On 1 April 2011, Justice Oguli set aside the judgment on condition that the defendant deposit UGX 2,000,000 as security for costs. On 17 May 2013, the case came before Justice Nahamya. The defendant's counsel informed the court that he had lost contact with his client and sought to withdraw. The plaintiff's counsel prayed that the ex parte judgment be restored as the security had not been deposited. Justice Nahamya reinstated the judgment. The applicant now seeks to set aside Justice Nahamya's order, claiming that the security of UGX 2,000,000 was paid to counsel Isodo on 15 April 2011. Counsel Isodo issued receipts for three smaller payments totaling UGX 2,090,000 but did not acknowledge receipt of the UGX 2,000,000 allegedly paid as security. The security was never deposited in court.

Issues

  1. Whether the court has jurisdiction to interfere with the order of Justice Nahamya reinstating the ex parte judgment.
  2. Whether the applicant provided sufficient evidence of depositing the security for costs as ordered.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction — Functus Officio — Coordinate Jurisdiction
A judge of the High Court has no jurisdiction to set aside or interfere with an order made by another judge of coordinate jurisdiction; the court is functus officio and cannot be asked to revisit a decision made by a judge of equal standing.
Exercise of Judicial Discretion — Appellate Review
Where a trial court has exercised judicial discretion, the remedy for a dissatisfied party lies in appeal to a higher court; an appellate court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion unless it was wrong in principle or the court acted perversely on the facts.
Security for Costs — Compliance with Court Orders
Where a court orders the deposit of security for costs as a condition for setting aside an ex parte judgment, failure to comply with that order provides no basis for further setting aside the ex parte judgment.
Burden of Proof — Receipts and Documentary Evidence
Where a party alleges payment to counsel, the absence of a receipt acknowledging that specific payment and the failure of the funds to be deposited in court as ordered constitute insufficient evidence on a balance of probabilities to establish that the payment was made.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (2)

  • Ochola v National Bank of Kenya Ltd (2000) EA 475
  • CMC Holding Ltd v Nzioki (2004) 1 EA 23 (CAK)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Little Sisters of St.Francis v Sgt. Olinga (Misc. Applic. 23 of 2013) [2014] UGHCCD 113 (2 September 2014)
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.