Wakilii

Nakalema Hellen and Another v Mascot Logistics Limited (Consolidated Miscellaneous Application No. 343 and 389 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 70 · 2026 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated applications to set aside ex parte judgment in underlying civil suit for debt recovery against estate administrators
Decision
One application struck out for lack of locus standi; second application allowed and ex parte judgment set aside; main suit remitted for hearing on 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The court struck out Nakalema Hellen's application for lack of locus standi, as her letters of administration had been revoked and the estate was adequately represented by the remaining administrators. The court declined to determine the limitation issue at the preliminary stage because it turned on a contested factual question regarding the authenticity of an alleged 2020 acknowledgment of debt. The court set aside the ex parte judgment against Nassiwa Hadijah, finding sufficient cause based on negligence of her former counsel, ineffective service of hearing notices, triable issues in her proposed defence, and serious allegations of fraud and collusion warranting full investigation.

Outcome

One application struck out for lack of locus standi; second application allowed and ex parte judgment set aside; main suit remitted for hearing on merits

Facts

The late Ssesebwe Vincent Salongo died intestate. Letters of administration were initially granted to Nakalema Hellen, Nassiwa Hadijah, and Nalwadda Bella Brenda. Mascot Logistics Limited filed Civil Suit No. 70 of 2023 against the three administrators claiming recovery of UGX 371,837,704 allegedly taken by the deceased for personal use between 2005 and 2015. The Respondent obtained ex parte judgment on 19 March 2025 for special damages, general damages, interest, and costs totalling UGX 469,324,736.64. During the pendency of the suit, Nakalema Hellen's letters of administration were revoked, leaving only Nassiwa Hadijah and Nalwadda Bella Brenda as administrators. Both Nakalema Hellen and Nassiwa Hadijah filed applications to set aside the ex parte judgment. Nassiwa Hadijah claimed she instructed M/s Sebanja & Co. Advocates who negligently failed to file a defence, and that she was not served with hearing notices. Allegations of collusion arose because Nalwadda Bella Brenda is the biological daughter of Lillian Nanyonga, a director and majority shareholder of the Respondent company.

Issues

  1. Whether Nakalema Hellen has locus standi to maintain Miscellaneous Application No. 343 of 2025.
  2. Whether the plaint in Civil Suit No. 70 of 2023 is time-barred and should be dismissed.
  3. Whether there are sufficient grounds to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 70 of 2023.

Orders

  • Miscellaneous Application No. 343 of 2025 is struck out for the Applicant's lack of locus standi with no order as to costs.
  • Miscellaneous Application No. 389 of 2025 is allowed.
  • The ex parte judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 70 of 2023 dated 19th March 2025 is set aside.
  • Nassiwa Hadijah is granted leave to file a written statement of defence within 14 days from the date of this ruling.
  • Civil Suit No. 70 of 2023 shall be heard inter parties on its merits.
  • The Respondent shall pay costs of MA 389/2025 to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Locus Standi — Estate Administrators — Effect of Revocation of Letters of Administration
Where letters of administration are revoked and fresh grants issued to other administrators, the former administrator lacks locus standi to maintain proceedings in the capacity of administrator, as the estate is adequately represented by the current administrators who have the legal mandate to represent the estate in legal proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Limitation — Acknowledgment of Debt — Contested Authenticity
Where a limitation defence is raised but turns on a contested factual question regarding the authenticity of an acknowledgment of debt, the issue cannot be determined summarily at the preliminary stage and must be resolved at a full trial with production of original documents, expert evidence, and cross-examination of witnesses.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment — Negligence of Counsel
A mistake, negligence, or error on the part of counsel in failing to file a defence constitutes sufficient cause for setting aside an ex parte judgment under Order 9 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as such mistake should not be visited upon the litigant and entitles the court to exercise discretion to allow the matter to be considered on its merits.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Ineffective Service — Hearing Notices
Service of hearing notices that does not yield the intended result of making the defendant aware of the hearing dates is ineffective service, and where a defendant was not served with hearing notices and therefore could not follow up with lawyers or appear in court, this constitutes sufficient cause for setting aside an ex parte judgment.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment — Triable Issues
Before setting aside an ex parte decree, the court must be satisfied that the defendant has a defence that raises substantial triable issues warranting a full trial, and where such issues exist, it is in the interests of justice to allow the defendant to defend the suit on its merits rather than allowing a default judgment to stand.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment — Fraud and Collusion — Prima Facie Case
At the stage of setting aside an ex parte judgment, where serious allegations of fraud and collusion are raised with specific instances including relationships between parties and selective service of process, the applicant need only show that there are triable issues warranting investigation at a full hearing, not prove fraud to the standard required at trial.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (21)

  • Shahida Abdul Hassanaly Kasam v Mahed Mohamed Gulamali Kanj (Civil Application No. 42 of 1999)
  • Wassaja Philip Musanje and Another v Kemirembe Winnie and Another (Civil Suit No. 320 of 2021)
  • Re-Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd [1981] HCB 104
  • Dima Dominic Poro v Inyoni and Another (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2016)
  • Arim Felix Clive v Stanbic Bank Ltd (Supreme Court Appeal No. 03 of 2015)
  • Charlotte Anum and 2 Others v The High Court Registrar and 8 Others (Civil Appeal No. JA/10/2022)
  • Geoffrey Gatete and Another v. William Kyobe [2007] UGSC 7
  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulam Hussein Habib Virani (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Wilson Nuwamanya v Mary Mugyenyi and Mbarara District Land Board (Civil Suit No. 047 of 2008)
  • E. Otabong v. A.G. [1991] ULSLR 150
  • Makula International (U) Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Fredrick J.K. Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Saava v Ainomugisha and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 834 of 2019)
  • Kyobe Senyange v. Naks Limited [1980] HCB 31
  • Silver Byaruhanga v Fr. Emmanuel Ruvugwaho and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2014)
  • Firdoshali Madatali Keshwani Habib and Another v The Departed Asian Property Custodian Board (Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2019)
  • Capt. Phillip Ongom v Catherine Nyero Owoto (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2001)
  • Lazarus Estate Ltd v. Beasly [1956] QB 702
  • Andrew Kanunura v Mary Mugenyi (Civil Suit No. 57 of 2008)
  • Yahaya Walusimbi v Justine Nakalanzi and 4 Others (Civil Application No. 386 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakalema Hellen and Another v Mascot Logistics Limited (Consolidated Miscellaneous Application No. 343 and 389 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 70 (13 March 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.