Wakilii

Mukembo v Mubiru and 4 Others (HCT-03-LD-MA 80 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 176 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte judgment and decree for alleged non-service of summons, arising from Civil Suit No. 009 of 2022
Decision
Ex parte judgment in underlying Civil Suit No. 009 of 2022 upheld; application to set aside dismissed

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 an ex parte judgment, finding that substituted service had been properly effected after attempts at personal service failed. The court found that the applicant's lawyers had been approached for service but declined to accept it, and that radio announcements and newspaper publications constituted effective substituted service under Order 5 rule 18(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for non-appearance.

Outcome

Ex parte judgment in underlying Civil Suit No. 009 of 2022 upheld; application to set aside dismissed

Facts

The applicant sought to set aside an ex parte judgment entered against him in Civil Suit No. 009 of 2022, claiming he was never served with summons. The applicant alleged he learned of the judgment through his sister's lawyer in March 2023, ten months after the judgment was delivered in June 2022. The respondents obtained an order for substituted service after attempts to serve the applicant personally at his lawyers' offices failed. Service was effected through radio announcements on NBS radio (five times daily for four days from 7 May 2022) and newspaper publications in Bukedde and Monitor dailies. The underlying suit concerned administration of an estate. The court found that the applicant's current lawyers had been approached for service but declined to accept it, and that proper efforts at personal service had been made before substituted service was ordered.

Issues

  1. Whether service of summons was effective on the applicant.
  2. Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause to warrant setting aside the ex parte judgment.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • The Judgment and Orders made in Civil Suit No. 009 of 2022 remain valid and stand.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Substituted Service — Requirements for Valid Substituted Service
Substituted service under Order 5 rule 18(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules is as effectual as personal service, but may only be ordered where the court is satisfied that for any reason the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, and proper effort must first be made to effect personal service.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Substituted Service — Effect of Valid Substituted Service
Where an order for substituted service has been properly obtained and the mode of service prescribed by the court has been complied with, service is deemed effective and an ex parte judgment entered thereafter is not irregular and need not be set aside on grounds of non-service.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgments — Sufficient Cause — Delay in Making Application
An application to set aside an ex parte judgment brought ten months after the judgment was entered, without satisfactory explanation for the delay, demonstrates a lack of sufficient cause and may be dismissed on that basis alone.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (2)

  • Remco Ltd v Miistray Jadbra Ltd (2002) 1 EA 233
  • UTC v Katongole and Another (1975) HCB 336

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mukembo v Mubiru and 4 Others (HCT-03-LD-MA 80 of 2023) [2023] UGHC 176 (22 November 2023)
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.