Wakilii

Muyanja Shafiq v Matovu Bukenya Livingstone (Miscellaneous Application No. 2056 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 23 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside exparte order arising from Miscellaneous Cause No. 029 of 2025
Decision
Exparte order set aside; applicant granted leave to file affidavit in reply and submissions

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 an applicant was in civil prison at the time of the alleged service and hearing of a miscellaneous cause, and there was no evidence of effective service on the officer in charge of the prison as required by Order 5 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the failure to serve constituted sufficient cause to set aside the exparte order. The right to fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution is non-derogable and improper service renders any resultant exparte judgment irregular.

Outcome

Exparte order set aside; applicant granted leave to file affidavit in reply and submissions

Facts

The Respondent filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 029 of 2025 seeking a vesting order in respect of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 82 Plot 873. The Applicant was never served with the application. On 24th June 2025, the Applicant was arrested and committed to civil prison arising from Execution Miscellaneous Cause No. 009 of 2023. The hearing of Miscellaneous Cause No. 029 of 2025 was fixed for 24th July 2025 while the Applicant was in prison. The Respondent filed an affidavit of service claiming to have served the Applicant in person on 18th June 2025, which the Applicant denied. The court proceeded exparte and made orders against the Applicant. The Applicant was released from prison on 4th September 2025 and learned of the exparte proceedings from a neighbour. He immediately instructed lawyers and filed this application to set aside the exparte order on grounds of non-service.

Issues

  1. Whether the Application discloses any sufficient ground for setting aside the exparte order passed by this Honourable Court in Miscellaneous Cause No. 029 of 2025?

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 (2) 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 — Service of Process — Service on Defendant in Prison — Requirements under Order 5 Rule 19
Where a defendant is confined in prison, service of summons or other court process must be effected by delivering or sending the documents to the officer in charge of the prison for service on the defendant, and not by purported personal service outside the prison.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Exparte Orders — Sufficient Cause — Non-Service
Non-service or improper service of court documents constitutes sufficient cause for setting aside an exparte order, as it deprives the party of the opportunity to be heard and violates the right to fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution.
Civil Procedure — Exparte Judgments — Irregularity — Effect of Improper Service
If there is improper service of summons to enter appearance, the resultant exparte judgment is irregular and must be set aside by the court.
Constitutional Law — Right to Fair Hearing — Non-Derogable Rights — Article 28
The right to fair hearing enshrined in Article 28 of the Constitution is non-derogable and requires that a party to a claim or suit be given fair notice and an opportunity to prepare a defence within a reasonable time.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (7)

  • Banco Arabe Esponol Vs Bank of Uganda
  • Geoffrey Gatete & Anor Vs William Kyobe
  • Vantange Mezzanine Fund II Partnership & Anor v Commissioner Land Registration (HCMA 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 I3l
  • 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_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._2056_of_2025)_[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.