Wakilii

Lucy Ssebaale Nantale v Rukundo Jennifer and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 772 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHCFD 110 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte proceedings arising from High Court Civil Suit No. 0088 of 2022
Decision
Application dismissed; ex parte proceedings upheld

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 court dismissed the application to set aside ex parte proceedings. The applicant was duly served through her son and by substituted service, and was aware of the suit but failed to file a defence. The applicant did not establish sufficient cause for non-appearance. The application was also brought under the wrong procedural rule — Order 9 rule 27 applies to defendants who filed defences but failed to attend hearing, whereas Order 9 rule 12 applies to defendants who did not file a defence.

Outcome

Application dismissed; ex parte proceedings upheld

Facts

The respondents filed Civil Suit No. 0088 of 2022 against the applicant seeking declarations regarding land comprised in Kibuga Block 36 Plot 348 at Kitebi, alleging fraudulent registration in the applicant's name. The applicant, residing in the United Kingdom, was served through her son Denis on 18 March 2022. The process server spoke to the applicant by phone and she instructed that documents be left with her son who would scan and send them to her. The applicant failed to file a defence. Court ordered substituted service by publication in newspapers. When the applicant still did not respond, the matter proceeded ex parte on 19 December 2023, with locus visit on 17 January 2025. The applicant then filed this application to set aside the ex parte proceedings, claiming she was not properly served.

Issues

  1. Whether the ex parte proceedings in High Court Civil Suit No. 0088 of 2022 should be set aside and the said suit be heard inter-party.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The application is hereby dismissed.
  • Costs shall be borne by the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Effective Service — Acknowledgment by Defendant
Where a defendant residing abroad acknowledges a suit by telephone and instructs the process server to leave documents with her son for transmission to her, this constitutes effective service even if personal service was not perfected.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Proceedings — Setting Aside — Sufficient Cause
An application to set aside ex parte proceedings will not succeed unless the applicant provides good or substantial reasons showing that failure to appear was not due to wilful disregard of the court process. Sufficient cause relates to some inability or failure of the applicant to take a particular step in time, not deliberate obstruction or delay.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Proceedings — Setting Aside — Defence on Merits
In determining whether to set aside ex parte proceedings, the court must consider whether the applicant has raised a defence that is likely to succeed at trial. It is not sufficient to merely state that the applicant has a plausible defence; the defence must carry some degree of conviction and show a real prospect of success.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Proceedings — Procedural Rules — Order 9 Rules 12 and 27
Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies to defendants who filed defences but failed to attend court on the hearing date. Order 9 rule 12 applies to defendants who did not file a defence. The two rules should not be combined in the same application as they address different procedural scenarios.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (4)

  • Abdul Gaffer bin Fathil v Chua Kwang Yong [1994] 3 SLR(R) 1056
  • Rosette Kizito v Administrator General and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1986)
  • Twiga Chemical v Bamusedde [2005] 2 EA 325
  • Shah v Mbogo [1967] EA 116

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lucy Ssebaale Nantale v Rukundo Jennifer and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 772 of 2022) [2025] UGHCFD 110 (26 September 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.