Wakilii

Muyanja Shafiq v Matovu Bukenya Livingstone [2026] UGHCLD 23

High Court · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside an order permitting a miscellaneous cause to proceed ex parte, and for leave to file an affidavit in reply
Decision
Ex parte order set aside; applicant granted leave to file an affidavit in reply and submissions in Miscellaneous Cause No. 029 of 2025

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 set aside an order permitting a vesting order application to proceed ex parte, holding that non-service of the notice of motion amounts to sufficient cause justifying a party's non-appearance. Where a party is confined in prison, service must be effected through the officer in charge of the prison under Order 5 rule 19, and an affidavit of service that is unsupported and uncontradicted by rebuttal evidence does not establish effective service. Improper service renders the resulting ex parte proceeding irregular. The applicant was granted leave to file an affidavit in reply and submissions, with costs in the main cause, the court emphasising the non-derogable right to a fair hearing under Article 28.

Outcome

Ex parte order set aside; applicant granted leave to file an affidavit in reply and submissions in Miscellaneous Cause No. 029 of 2025

Facts

The respondent filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 029 of 2025 against the applicant and the Registrar of Titles seeking a vesting order in respect of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 82 Plot 873. The respondent filed an affidavit of service asserting that the applicant was served personally on 18 June 2025 and had refused to acknowledge receipt, the service allegedly being witnessed by the area Local Council Chairperson, though no supporting evidence was attached. The applicant was arrested on a warrant dated 24 June 2025 and committed to civil prison in execution proceedings, and was released on 4 September 2025. The cause came up for hearing on 24 July 2025, while the applicant was in civil prison, and the court ordered that it proceed ex parte because no affidavit in reply had been filed. The applicant learnt of the cause from a neighbour after his release and promptly instructed advocates, who sought settlement without success. Ruling in the cause had been scheduled for 22 October 2025. The applicant denied ever being served, and no evidence of service through the officer in charge of the prison was produced. The respondent did not oppose the present application and did not appear at its hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the application discloses sufficient ground for setting aside the order that Miscellaneous Cause No. 029 of 2025 proceed ex parte against the applicant.

Orders

  • The Order to proceed exparte against the Applicant in Miscellaneous Cause No. 029 of 2025 is hereby set aside.
  • The Applicant is granted leave to file an affidavit in reply to Miscellaneous Cause No. 029 of 2025 and written submissions in reply within two weeks from the date of this ruling.
  • The Respondent is directed to file his affidavit in rejoinder and submissions in rejoinder (if any) within two weeks after the filing of the affidavit in reply and submissions by the Applicant.
  • The Court will thereafter deliver its Ruling in Miscellaneous Cause No. 029 of 2025 on notice via ECCMIS.
  • The costs of this Application shall be in the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders — Sufficient Cause for Non-Appearance
An ex parte order will be set aside where the applicant shows sufficient cause, being a reason relating to an inability or failure to take a necessary step at the right time that negates dilatory conduct, indolence or negligence; non-service of the originating process on a party who was in prison at the material time constitutes such sufficient cause.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Service on a Party Confined in Prison
Where a party is confined in prison, service of summons and other court processes, including a notice of motion, must be delivered or sent to the officer in charge of the prison for service on that party under Order 5 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules; in the absence of evidence of such service, service is not effective.
Civil Procedure — Proof of Service — Adequacy of an Affidavit of Service
Proof of service is by affidavit of service stating the time and manner of service and the name and address of any person identifying or witnessing service; where the deponent's assertions of personal service are unsupported by corroborating evidence and are denied, and there is no rebuttal of the denial, the court may find that there was no effective service.
Civil Procedure — Irregular Ex Parte Judgments — Effect of Improper Service
Where there is improper service of the process requiring a party to enter appearance, any resulting ex parte judgment or order is irregular and must be set aside.
Human Rights — Fair Hearing — Right to Notice and Opportunity to Be Heard
A party to a suit or application is entitled under Article 28 of the Constitution to fair notice and an opportunity to prepare and present a defence within a reasonable time, and that right is non-derogable.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (7)

  • Banco Arabe Esponol Vs Bank of Uganda
  • Geoffrey Gatete & Anor Vs William Kyobe
  • Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership & Anor v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Application No. 2484 of 2023)
  • Mumello v Bank of Tanzania (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2002)
  • Tanga Cement Company Limited v Jumanne D. Masangwa and Amos A. Mwalwanda (Civil Application No. 6 of 2001)
  • Lucos Marlsr Vs Uganda Breweries Ltd (1988-1990) HCB 131
  • Remco Ltd Vs. Miistray Jadbra Ltd (2002) (1) E.A Page 233

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Muyanja Shafiq v Matovu Bukenya Livingstone [2026] UGHCLD 23 (27 January 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.