Muyonjo & Another v The Registered Trustees of Namirembe Diocese (Civil Appeal 33 of 1993)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Supreme Court held that Order 9 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which deals only with the filing of an affidavit of service, does not empower a Registrar to enter an interlocutory judgment. The interlocutory judgment entered by the Deputy Registrar was therefore a nullity, and the ex-parte judgment passed at the end of the 'formal proof' proceedings was invalid. Both the respondents' and appellants' counsel agreed the ex-parte judgment was wrong. The appeal was allowed with costs, the order refusing to set aside the ex-parte judgment was set aside, the ex-parte judgment itself was set aside, and the case was remitted to the High Court for hearing.

Outcome

Ex-parte judgment set aside and case remitted to the High Court for hearing.

Facts

The respondents, claiming to own a seven-acre piece of land at Lukuli near Kampala (Plot Nos. 288 and 293), sued the appellants, a mother and son, in the High Court for trespass and malicious damage to property. They sought an eviction order, a permanent injunction, special damages of Shs.2,000,000 for a damaged fence, general damages and costs. The appellants passed the summons and plaint to their lawyers with instructions to defend, but the lawyers neither entered an appearance nor filed a written statement of defence. The respondents obtained an interlocutory judgment, which the Deputy Registrar purported to enter under Order 9 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Following ex-parte 'formal proof' proceedings before Kityo J, judgment was delivered granting all the remedies sought. The appellants applied to set aside the ex-parte judgment, contending among other grounds that they were long-standing customary tenants. The High Court refused the application for want of sufficient cause, leading to this appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the interlocutory judgment entered by the Deputy Registrar under Order 9 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules was a nullity.
2. Whether, the interlocutory judgment being a nullity, the ex-parte judgment founded on it and the High Court's refusal to set it aside should be set aside.

Orders

• Appeal allowed with costs.
• Order of the High Court refusing to set aside the ex-parte judgment set aside.
• Ex-parte judgment set aside.
• Case remitted to the High Court for hearing.
• Costs of the suit in the High Court to abide the event.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.3
• Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.4
• Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.5
• Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.6
• Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.8
• Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.9
• Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.24
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.42(3)(a)

Cases citing this judgment (19)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Four Star Beverages Limited v Prime Care International Limited (Trademark No.S UG T 2020 068855; Trademark No.S UG T 2020 068856)
• Ssengendo v Lugwisa (Civil Appeal 188 of 2023) followed
• Bangi v Mutyabule (Civil Appeal 119 of 2016)
• Munghenghe & Another v Nasinyagha & 2 Others (Civil Appeal 101 of 2021)
• Departed Asians' Property Custodian Board v Musa Balikowa (Miscellaneous Application 334 of 2023)
• Vegol (U) Limited v Sentongo (Miscellaneous Application No. 72 of 2020)
• Peter Wakhatenge and Another v National Water and Sewerage Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 0033 of 2014)
• Shalom Catering Services Ltd v Mariye Estates Ltd (Civil Suit No. 131 of 2019)
• Shaka v Nsubuga and Another (Civil Suit No. 146 of 2018)
• Musoke & 2 Others v M s Life Ministry Uganda & 3 Others (Civil Appeal No. 134 of 2013)
• Mbambu v Monday (HCT – 01 – CA – 0010 OF 2016)
• Stream Aviation FZC v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 9 of 2010)
• Kenyenya & Ors v Nabikolo & Ors (Civil Suit No. 771 of 2007)
• Nalwoga v Bagaaliwo (Civil Appeal No. 084 of 2012)
• Eriyo v Ababiku & Anor (Election Petition No. 0002 of 2012) followed
• Regal Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Maria Asumpta Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Company Cause No. 20 of 2010)
• Doshi Hardware (U) Ltd v Alam Construction Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 425 of 2003)
• Uganda Breweries Limited v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Appeal 6 of 2001)
• Interfreight Forwarders Uganda Limited v East Africa Development Bank (Civil Appeal 33 of 1992)

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