Wakilii

Masaka Farmers and Producers Limited v Tamale and Another (Civil Suit 746 of 1991)

High Court · [1992] UGHC 40 · 1992 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside interlocutory judgment entered by Registrar
Decision
Interlocutory judgment set aside; defendants permitted to enter appearance and file defence

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 the interlocutory judgment be set aside. The defendants were genuinely misled by an error in the summons to enter appearance which stated 30 days instead of the statutory 15 days. Although laymen, they complied with what was written. The court found that the judgment was also entered in error under Order 9 rule 6, as the plaintiff's claims did not fall within that provision. The court exercised its discretion under Order 9 rule 9, noting triable issues existed based on alleged breach of contract and that the defendants should be heard. Costs awarded in the cause as neither party was to blame for the error in the summons.

Outcome

Interlocutory judgment set aside; defendants permitted to enter appearance and file defence

Facts

The plaintiff sued the defendants in Civil Suit No. 746 of 1991. The summons to enter appearance served on the defendants on 14 December 1991 erroneously stated that they had 30 days to enter appearance instead of the statutory 15 days. Relying on this, the defendants entered appearance within 30 days. The Registrar ruled that appearance was out of time and entered interlocutory judgment against the defendants on 14 January 1992 under Order 9 rule 6. The defendants applied to set aside the judgment, asserting they were misled by the error in the summons and had a defence to the claim. The plaintiff opposed, arguing there was no sufficient cause and no probable defence shown.

Issues

  1. Whether the interlocutory judgment entered by the Registrar should be set aside.
  2. Whether the defendants/applicants showed sufficient cause for failing to enter appearance within the statutory period.
  3. Whether the defendants/applicants had a probable defence to the plaintiff's claim.
  4. Whether the interlocutory judgment was entered in error given the nature of the claim.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Interlocutory judgment entered on 13/1/92 set aside.
  • Defendants given 10 days from the date hereof to enter appearance and file written statement of defence.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Interlocutory Judgment — Order 9 rule 9 — Discretion of Court
Under Order 9 rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court has wide discretion to set aside or vary an interlocutory judgment upon such terms as may be just, and courts should avoid unbalanced trials where one party is not heard if the other party can be compensated by way of costs.
Civil Procedure — Appearance — Mistake in Summons — Effect on Compliance
Where a summons to enter appearance contains a clerical error stating 30 days instead of the statutory 15 days, defendants who are laymen and who enter appearance within the erroneous 30-day period stated in the summons have provided sufficient cause for late appearance and should not be penalised for complying with what was written in the official court document served on them.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Judgment — Order 9 rule 6 — Scope of Application
An interlocutory judgment may only be entered under Order 9 rule 6 where the claim is for pecuniary damages only or for detention of goods with or without a claim for pecuniary damages; where a plaintiff claims general damages, special damages to be assessed, mesne profits, and vacant possession, the claim does not fall within Order 9 rule 6 and an interlocutory judgment entered under that provision is made in error.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Civil Procedure Rules Or. 9 r. 9
  • Civil Procedure Rules Or. 48
  • Civil Procedure Rules Or. 9 r. 6
  • Civil Procedure Rules Or. 9 r. 1
  • Civil Procedure Rules Or. 9 r. 8

Cases cited (3)

  • Samuel B. Musoke vs. East African Cotton Exporter 1976, HCB 201
  • Sebei District Administration vs. G.W.K.K. Another 1968 EA 500
  • Jamal Kas. V. Sodha vs. Gorchanlal Somraj 1958 ULR 7

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Masaka Farmers and Producers Limited v Tamale and Another (Civil Suit 746 of 1991) [1992] UGHC 40 (16 June 1992)
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.