Wakilii

Muscle Group Ltd v MM Integrated Steel Mills (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 2538 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 32 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte judgment arising from Civil Suit No. 350 of 2023
Decision
Ex parte judgment set aside; suit reinstated for hearing on the merits

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 held that an applicant defendant against whom an ex parte judgment was entered has locus standi to apply for setting aside that judgment under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules, notwithstanding that the application was framed as one for review. Where substituted service was effected but new directors were unaware of proceedings due to corporate restructuring, sufficient cause was established. The ex parte judgment was set aside and the suit reinstated for hearing.

Outcome

Ex parte judgment set aside; suit reinstated for hearing on the merits

Facts

The Respondent instituted Civil Suit No. 350 of 2023 against the Applicant and one Ssendagire Charles for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and recovery of UGX 550,000,000. The Respondent withdrew the case against Ssendagire. The suit proceeded ex parte against the Applicant, which was found liable to pay UGX 550,000,000 plus damages and costs. The Applicant's corporate structure changed after the cause of action arose; the former director Ssendagire, who had dealt with the Respondent and handled payments, ceased to be a director. The Applicant closed its physical premises and was served by substituted service. The new directors were unaware of the proceedings until execution was attempted. The Applicant discovered evidence suggesting it had paid the monies claimed, but this evidence was not presented at trial because the former director who was knowledgeable of the facts had been excluded and was no longer an official of the company.

Issues

  1. Whether this application discloses grounds for review?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The ex parte order in High Court Civil Suit No. 350 of 2023, MM Integrated Steel Mills (U) Ltd v Muscle Group Ltd, is hereby set aside.
  • High Court Civil Suit No. 350 of 2023, MM Integrated Steel Mills (U) Ltd v Muscle Group Ltd is hereby reinstated.
  • High Court Civil Suit No. 350 of 2023 is hereby fixed for hearing on 24th March, 2026 at 9.30am.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgments — Locus Standi — Defendant's Right to Apply
A defendant against whom an ex parte judgment has been entered has locus standi to apply for setting aside that judgment under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as such a defendant is an aggrieved person who has suffered a legal grievance as a result of the judgment.
Civil Procedure — Review versus Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgments — Appropriate Remedy
The appropriate procedure for challenging an ex parte judgment is under Order 9 rule 12 or Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules, not by way of review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 rule 1. However, where an application is brought under the wrong procedure but the Court has jurisdiction to grant the remedy sought and no prejudice results to the respondent, the irregularity is not fatal and the Court may proceed under the correct provision in the interests of substantive justice.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgments — Sufficient Cause — Corporate Restructuring and Substituted Service
Where a corporate defendant's premises were closed and substituted service was effected, but a change in the corporate structure resulted in new directors being unaware of the proceedings because the former director who had dealt with the plaintiff was no longer managing the company's affairs, sufficient cause is established for setting aside the ex parte judgment under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Affidavit Evidence — Hearsay — Corporate Bodies
A corporate body can only give evidence through its present officials, who are deemed to be knowledgeable in respect of the company's affairs. Where a current director deposes to matters that occurred before she became a director but discloses the source of her information, and a supplementary affidavit is filed by a former director with personal knowledge, the affidavit is not defective for containing hearsay.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (14)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017)
  • Col. (RTD) Dr. Kizza Besigye v Yoweri Kaguta Museveni & Another (Electoral Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Nicolas Roussos v Gullam Hussein Virani and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 09 of 1993)
  • Attorney General v Mark Kamoga & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
  • Mohammed Allibhai v W.E Bukenya Mukasa & Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Nicolas Roussos v Gullam Hussein Virani and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 09 of 1993)
  • Tarlol Singh Saggu Vs Road Master Cycles (U) Ltd [2002] 1 EA 258
  • Florence Nabatanzi v Naome Binsobedde (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1987)
  • Sipiriya Kyaturesire v Justine Bakachulike Bagambe (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1995)
  • Hikima Kyamanywa v Sajjabi Chris (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2006)
  • Gideon Mose Onchwati Vs Kenya Oil Co. Ltd and Another [2017] KLR 650
  • Parimal Vs Veena Alias Bhati [2011] 3 SCC 545

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Muscle Group Ltd v MM Integrated Steel Mills (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 2538 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 32 (9 February 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.