Wakilii

Musinga Saul Eli v Mawanda Richard (Civil Suit 7 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 418 · 2026 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Summary suit for liquidated money demand where defendant failed to apply for leave to defend
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff for the liquidated sum with interest and costs

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 where a defendant in a summary suit is properly served with summons and fails to apply for leave to defend within the period prescribed by Order 36 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for the liquidated sum claimed. Service on the defendant while in prison was proved by affidavit of the process server. Judgment entered for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed plus interest and costs.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff for the liquidated sum with interest and costs

Facts

The plaintiff filed a summary suit against the defendant claiming UGX 272,750,000. The defendant was served with summons and an especially amended plaint on 27 March 2026 while on remand in Lugazi Prison. Service was proved by affidavit of Wahabu Ndyanabo, a process server attached to Lugazi Chief Magistrates Court, sworn on 31 March 2026. The affidavit confirmed that the defendant acknowledged receipt by signing and that a prison officer witnessed the service. Under Order 36 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the defendant was required to apply for leave to defend within the statutory period. The defendant failed to make any such application. The plaintiff applied for judgment in default.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant was properly served with summons on the summary suit.
  2. Whether the defendant's failure to apply for leave to defend within the statutory period entitled the plaintiff to judgment.

Orders

  • Judgment entered against the defendant.
  • Defendant to pay the plaintiff UGX 272,750,000.
  • Interest on the judgment sum at 23% per annum from the date of filing suit until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Service of Process — Service on Defendant in Prison
Service of summons on a defendant in prison is valid where the process server deposes to an affidavit confirming that the defendant acknowledged receipt by signing in the presence of a prison officer and attaches photographic evidence of the defendant served.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Leave to Defend — Failure to Apply Within Statutory Period
Under Order 36 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a defendant in a summary suit may only defend upon applying for and obtaining leave from court within the period fixed in the summons. Failure to file the application within the prescribed period entitles the plaintiff to judgment for the amount claimed in the plaint.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (1)

  • Innocent Nuriat v Alliance in Motion Global (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 21 of 2025)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Musinga Saul Eli v Mawanda Richard (Civil Suit 7 of 2026) [2026] UGHC 418 (23 April 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.