Wakilii

Moses Nyangas Chepchulei and Another v Nyongesa Abdu and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 75 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 670 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from orders of the Deputy Registrar in execution proceedings arising from a conditionally set aside ex parte judgment
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents

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 dismissed an appeal challenging the Deputy Registrar's orders regarding a defective Written Statement of Defence. The court held that the Deputy Registrar acted within jurisdiction in directing validation of a WSD that was filed within the prescribed time but lacked proper signature and seal due to counsel's omission. The omission was a technical breach curable under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, given the respondents' clear intention to comply with court orders by filing the WSD and paying security for costs. The Deputy Registrar did not review or vary the trial Judge's orders but properly referred the validation question to the Judge.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

On 18 April 2023, the High Court entered an ex parte judgment in favour of the applicants in Civil Suit No. 017 of 2021. The respondents successfully applied to set aside the ex parte judgment on condition that they file a Written Statement of Defence within 30 days and pay security for costs of UGX 5,500,000. The respondents paid the security and filed a WSD on 8 January 2024, within the prescribed time. However, their counsel failed to include space for the Deputy Registrar's signature and seal on the WSD. When the applicants applied for execution, the Deputy Registrar directed the respondents to seek validation of the WSD within 5 days. The applicants appealed, arguing that the Deputy Registrar acted without jurisdiction in allowing validation of a defective WSD and in reviewing the trial Judge's orders.

Issues

  1. Whether the application/appeal is properly before the Court?
  2. Whether the respondents' failure to comply with notices to show cause constituted contempt denying them audience?
  3. Whether the validation of the respondents' incompetent joint written statement of defence was irregular, improper, null and void and an abuse of court process?
  4. Whether the affidavit in opposition to the appeal is premised on a falsified authority and should be struck out?
  5. Whether the learned Deputy Registrar erred in law and fact when he, without jurisdiction, reviewed/varied the orders of the judge outside the stipulated 30 days?
  6. Whether the learned Deputy Registrar erred in law and fact when he misdirected himself and made a finding that the judge had set aside the judgment whereas it had been reinstated?
  7. Whether the learned Deputy Registrar erred in law and fact when he dismissed a non-existing Taxation Application to circumvent execution?
  8. Whether the learned Deputy Registrar erred in law and fact when he, without jurisdiction, stayed execution without a formal application?

Orders

  • The entire application/appeal by the applicants is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals from Registrar — Jurisdiction and Procedure
Appeals from decisions of registrars are governed by Order 50 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which provides that any person aggrieved by any order of a registrar may appeal from the order to the High Court by motion on notice.
Civil Procedure — Execution — Notice to Show Cause — Effect of Non-Compliance
Failure by a judgment debtor to obey a notice to show cause why execution should not issue does not constitute contempt of court but is a procedural omission that lawfully triggers issuance of a warrant against the judgment debtor under Order 22 rule 34(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Written Statement of Defence — Filing Requirements — Signature and Seal
Under Order 9 rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, a defence is considered duly filed when signed and sealed by a judicial officer. However, where counsel files a WSD within the prescribed time but omits to provide space for the judicial officer's signature and seal, this is a technical breach curable under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution where the litigant's intention to comply with court orders is clear from other actions such as payment of security for costs.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Authority to Depose on Behalf of Others
There is no basis in the rules of evidence or procedure for the principle that where there is no written authority to swear an affidavit on behalf of another person, the affidavit is defective. An affidavit can stand even in the absence of authority by other parties to a cause. Competency to swear an affidavit is pegged to the deponent's ability to depose to the facts of the case based on personal knowledge, not on authorisation by a party to the litigation.
Civil Procedure — Registrar's Powers — Review of Orders
A Deputy Registrar does not review or vary a trial Judge's order when he directs a party to seek validation of a defective pleading from the Judge, leaving the question of validity to the court that issued the original order. The Deputy Registrar acts within jurisdiction in making procedural directions that refer substantive questions back to the Judge.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (7)

  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] 2 EA 22
  • Simon Tendo Kabenge v Barclays Bank (U) Ltd and Another (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2015)
  • Uganda Micro Finance Union Ltd v Sebufu Richard and Another (HCMA No. 610 of 2007)
  • George William Katatumba and Others v Abarihamwe Livestock Cooperative Society Ltd and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 06 of 2021)
  • Col. Besigye Kiiza v Museveni Yoweri (EP No. 1 of 2001)
  • Attorney General and Another v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • BankOne Limited v Simbamanyo Estates Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 645 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Moses Nyangas Chepchulei and Another v Nyongesa Abdu and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 75 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 670 (12 August 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.