Male Mabilizi v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 918 of 2021)

Observed later treatment

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 dismissed an application to set aside an order for substituted service by email. The court held that electronic service is recognized in Uganda under the Companies Act and the 2019 ICT Practice Directions, and that courts have power to direct service by email where personal service is impracticable and the applicant is avoiding service.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicant sought to set aside an order directing that he be served with Miscellaneous Application No. 843 of 2021 by email. The underlying application was for contempt. The respondent had applied for substituted service on grounds that the applicant was not answering phone calls and was avoiding service. The court granted service by email to the applicant's email address which appeared on his pleadings. The applicant then filed this application challenging email service as not being a recognized mode under the Civil Procedure Rules. After service by email was effected, the applicant filed affidavits in rejoinder and submissions in the contempt proceedings. The applicant did not appear at the hearing of this application and filed no submissions.

Issues

1. Whether the order for substituted service by email should be set aside.
2. Whether service by email is a valid mode of service under Ugandan civil procedure.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (12)

• Constitution of Uganda Article 28(1)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 44(c)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 126(1)
• Judicature Act s.33
• Judicature Act s.39
• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 7
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 10
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 18
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 1
• Companies Act s.274
• Constitution (Integration of ICT into the Adjudication Processes for Courts of Judicature)(Practice) Directions 2019

Cases citing this judgment (7)

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.

• Wakanyira John t a Wakanyira & Co Advocates v Zhang Heng Lin alias Henry Lubega (Miscellaneous Application 1038 of 2024)
• Siren Security Group Ltd v Omongole Richard and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 2513 of 2025)
• DFI Food Sourcing BV and DF International BV v Shares! Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2457 of 2024)
• Richard Kisembo and Karumuna Safaris Limited v Pegasus Technologies Limited (Misc. Application No. 1493 of 2025)
• Palm Construction Company Limited v Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries [2024] UGPPDPAAT 44
• Mugabi v Sembabule District Local Council (Application No 24 of 2022)
• Mugerwa v Sembabule District Local Gorvernment (Application No 23 of 2022)

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