Wakilii

Mugarra Stephen and Others v Hajji Hassan Basajjabalaba (Civil Suit 27 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 620 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for setting aside interlocutory judgment and extension of time to file defence in main suit
Decision
Application for extension of time dismissed; applicants' failure to file defence 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

Held that an application for extension of time to file a defence fails where applicants do not file individual affidavits in support and evidence relating to them becomes hearsay. The court found that the applicants demonstrated a lack of seriousness in pursuing the matter and failed to show how their substantive rights would be affected without presenting their defence. The application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for extension of time dismissed; applicants' failure to file defence stands

Facts

The applicants were defendants in Civil Suit No. 2 of 2024 brought by the respondent concerning land allegedly purchased for UGX 397,000,000. The first applicant was served with the plaint and summons in May 2024. The third applicant claimed she was hospitalised in May 2024 with the second applicant as her caretaker, and that all applicants lacked finances to secure legal services in time to file a defence. The applicants appeared in court on 30 May 2024 with their lawyer but did not apply for extension of time to file a defence, instead seeking time to reply to a temporary injunction application. On 10 October 2024, they appeared without their lawyer and complained about his negligence, requesting to change legal representation. The court granted the temporary injunction. The applicants then filed this application represented by the same lawyer they had previously complained about, seeking to set aside any interlocutory judgment and for extension of time to file their defence.

Issues

  1. Whether the interlocutory judgment in the main suit should be set aside.
  2. Whether the applicants should be granted extension of time to file their defence out of time.
  3. Whether the affidavit in support is defective for being sworn by one applicant without demonstrating authority to swear on behalf of the other applicants.
  4. Whether the reasons advanced by the applicants constitute good cause for failing to file their defence in time.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Applications for Extension of Time — Affidavit Requirements — Multiple Applicants
Where an application for extension of time is brought in the names of multiple distinct applicants, each applicant must file their own affidavit in support unless the deponent demonstrates legal authority to swear on behalf of the others. Without individual affidavits, the application fails in respect of those applicants for whom no affidavit was filed, and any evidence relating to them becomes inadmissible hearsay.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Good Cause — Conduct of Applicant
In determining whether to grant extension of time to file a defence, the court considers the applicant's conduct and attitude throughout the proceedings. Where applicants consistently demonstrate lack of seriousness, fail to attach a proposed defence to show they are not employing delaying tactics, and fail to demonstrate impropriety on the part of the respondent, the application will be dismissed for lack of good cause.
Civil Procedure — Substantive Justice — Balance of Rights
The constitutional requirement for substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities applies equally to both parties. Granting extension of time without sufficient cause would prioritise the substantive rights of defaulting applicants over those of the respondent. The need for substantive justice must be balanced against the nature of the impropriety and the attitude of the defaulting party.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (5)

  • Rousos v Gulamhussein Habib Virani & Nasmudin Habib Virani (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • Andrew Bamanya v Shamsherali Zaver (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2001)
  • Lena Nakalema Binaisa & 3 Others v Mucunguzi Myers (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 460 of 2013)
  • Mugona & Rutenta v Muhereza (High Court Miscellaneous Application Nos. 19 & 317 of 2013)
  • Abdul Gaffer bin Fathil v Chua Kwang Yong [1994] 3 SLR (R) 1056

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mugarra Stephen and Others v Hajji Hassan Basajjabalaba (Civil Suit 27 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 620 (25 June 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.