Wakilii

Nakudi v Mukasa (Civil Appeal 2 of 1986)

Supreme Court · [1987] UGSC 6 · 1987 Case Remitted for Re-trial AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal to the Supreme Court from a High Court judgment in a suit for specific performance and damages that was tried ex parte.
Decision
Judgment of the High Court set aside and the case remitted to the High Court for re-trial.

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 appellant challenged a High Court decision that refused specific performance but awarded damages for breach of a tenancy and building-completion agreement, following an ex parte trial. The Supreme Court held that, although the memorandum of appeal was defective for not complying with the rule on framing grounds of appeal, the court was entitled on its own motion to examine the validity of the proceedings below. Finding the service of summons and ex parte proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the law, and that a party proceeding ex parte must show that the basis of his claim is valid in law, the court set aside the judgment and remitted the case to the High Court for re-trial, with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Judgment of the High Court set aside and the case remitted to the High Court for re-trial.

Facts

On 27 November 1971 the appellant entered into a tenancy agreement with the respondent, modified by a supplemental agreement of 5 May 1972. The appellant agreed to complete, at his own expense, construction of the respondent's building in Kampala and to recover his expenditure from rent. He spent about shs. 94,000 completing the house, took occupation on 1 March 1973, and operated a bar on the premises until about 1974. After completion the respondent sought to learn the appellant's expenditure, wishing to sell the house and repay him, contending that the agreed rent-recovery method would take too long. The appellant refused this as contrary to the tenancy agreement and was thereafter refused a licence to operate the bar. In March 1975, while the appellant was hospitalised following a car accident, the respondent evicted him. The appellant referred the dispute to arbitration under the agreement, but the respondent refused to attend. The appellant then sued for specific performance, loss of earnings and special damages; the High Court refused specific performance but awarded damages.

Issues

  1. Whether, despite a memorandum of appeal that fails to comply with the rule on framing grounds of appeal, the appellate court may on its own motion reconsider the validity of the proceedings conducted in the lower court.
  2. Whether the trial proceedings, including the service of summons and the ex parte hearing, were conducted in accordance with the law.
  3. Whether a plaintiff who obtains judgment in ex parte proceedings must establish that the basis of his claim is valid in law.

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court set aside.
  • Case remitted to the High Court for re-trial.
  • No order as to costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Memorandum of Appeal — Framing of Grounds
A memorandum of appeal must set out concisely, without narrative or argument, the grounds of objection to the decision appealed from, specifying the points of law or fact alleged to have been wrongly decided.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Powers of Appellate Court — Reconsideration on Own Motion
Notwithstanding a defective memorandum of appeal, an appellate court is entitled, of its own motion, to reconsider the validity of the proceedings conducted in the lower court.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Proceedings — Burden to Establish a Valid Claim
A plaintiff who obtains judgment in ex parte proceedings must establish that the basis of his claim is valid in law, and an appellate court will not allow a party to benefit from a decision wrongly decided merely because no appeal was taken on that ground.
Civil Procedure — Service of Summons and Ex Parte Hearing — Validity of Proceedings
Where the service of summons and the ex parte proceedings are not conducted in accordance with the law, the resulting judgment cannot stand and the case will be remitted for re-trial.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Court of Appeal Rules r.53(1)

Cases cited (1)

  • Timber Co. v Inder Singh (1959)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakudi v Mukasa (Civil Appeal 2 of 1986) [1987] UGSC 6 (16 February 1987)
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.