Wakilii

Monitor Publications Limited and Others v Silver Kayondo (Miscellaneous Application No. 261 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 298 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte order arising from Civil Suit No. 222 of 2024
Decision
Application to set aside ex parte order dismissed; ex parte order stands

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 court dismissed the application to set aside the ex parte order. The applicants failed to comply with court directives over a three-month period to file witness statements and trial bundles, despite being given ample time. The court properly exercised its discretion under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules to proceed ex parte when the applicants were not ready on the scheduled hearing date. No error apparent on the face of the record was established, and the applicants effectively locked themselves out by their non-compliance.

Outcome

Application to set aside ex parte order dismissed; ex parte order stands

Facts

The respondent sued the applicants in Civil Suit No. 222/2024 for copyright and personality rights infringement in February 2024. The applicants filed a defence in March 2024. Mediation failed in 2025. On 3 November 2025, court directed parties to file a joint scheduling memorandum by 30 November 2025, trial bundles by 15 December 2025, and witness statements by 15 January 2026, with hearing scheduled for 10 February 2026. The applicants failed to file their witness statements or trial bundles within the allocated three-month period. On 10 February 2026, when the matter came up for hearing, counsel holding brief for the applicants sought an adjournment, stating counsel in personal conduct was indisposed. The court rejected the adjournment and ordered the matter to proceed ex parte under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicants then brought this application to set aside the ex parte order.

Issues

  1. Whether the application discloses sufficient grounds to review and set aside the ex parte order vide Civil Suit No. 222/2024?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
For an error to constitute a ground for review, it must be apparent on the face of the record, that is, an evident error which does not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. It must be an error so manifest and clear that no court would permit such an error to remain on the record. An error apparent on the face of the record cannot be an error if it requires elaborate explanation to make out the said error.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Proceedings — Order 17 Rule 4 — Discretion to Proceed Ex Parte
The phrase 'proceed to decide the suit immediately' under Order 17 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not necessarily mean that the court must determine the matter at once. The court may, in the exercise of its discretion, direct that proceedings continue ex parte so as to take in the evidence of the parties present, while judgment is reserved for a later stage.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Proceedings — Order 17 Rule 4 — Requirement to Grant Time
The court may only proceed to decide a case immediately under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules after the party who has been given time to call his or her witnesses, or perform any other step required in the suit, fails to do so. The expression 'to whom time has been granted' and 'for which time has been allowed' are very important and require that sufficient time be availed to the disobeying party to perform the court's directive.
Civil Procedure — Adjournments — Constitutional Practice Directions — Exceptional Circumstances
Under Direction 6 of the Constitution (Adjournments for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2019, court shall not allow an adjournment of scheduled proceedings except in exceptional circumstances. Where counsel seeks an adjournment on grounds of indisposition but presents no evidence to prove that fact, the court is not persuaded to adjourn the matter.
Civil Procedure — Right to Fair Hearing — Waiver by Non-Compliance
Although the right to fair hearing is non-derogable, a party can waive the same if they do not exercise it when given the opportunity. Court cases cannot be allowed to drag for an unreasonable period of time because a party who has a right to fair hearing wants to exercise it whenever he or she pleases. This right has to be balanced with the court's duty to deliver justice because justice delayed is justice denied. A party locks themselves out by failing to comply with court's directives without a justifiable reason.
Civil Procedure — Holding Brief — Duty to Have Instructions to Proceed
Under Direction 8 of the Constitution (Adjournments for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2019, an advocate holding brief for another advocate shall ordinarily be expected to have instructions to proceed in the matter. Where counsel holding brief is not ready to proceed with the hearing, this is contrary to the said provision.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (14)

  • Farm Inputs Care Centre Ltd v Klein Karoo Seeds Marketing (Pty) Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 0861 of 2021)
  • Mpungu & Sons Transporters Ltd v Attorney General & Others (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2001)
  • Kukua Agriculture Ltd v Ahmed Tejani & Another (Civil Suit No. 0041 of 2019)
  • Elaisah Grace Badda vs Denis Ssempebwa and Another
  • Elaisah Grace Badda v Denis Ssempebwa and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 622 of 2022)
  • Abdul Jafar Devji v Ali RMS Devji [1958] EA 558
  • FX Mubwike v UEB (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Rutajengwa Elistariko & Anor v Sanyu Scovia Gatete (Civil Appeal No. 467 of 2022)
  • Edison Kanyebwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Civil Appeal No. 061 of 2014)
  • Nyamogo and Nyamogo Advocates v Moses Kipkolum Kogo (Civil Application No. 322 of 2000)
  • Muyodi v Industrial and Commercial Development Corporation and Anor [2006] I EA 24
  • Tabaro Nelensio v Omukwenda Kaija Bwango (Civil Suit No. 46 of 2018)
  • Mpower Oil Company Limited v Norvik Hospital Ltd and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 934 of 2025)
  • Macdowell Limited v Tampa Engineering Consultants Limited (Civil Appeal No. 180 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Monitor Publications Limited and Others v Silver Kayondo (Miscellaneous Application No. 261 of 2026) [2026] UGCommC 298 (14 June 2026)
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.