Wakilii

Nduho Mugyenyi v Equity Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 978 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 141 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside default judgment entered in Civil Suit No. 999 of 2023
Decision
Default judgment set aside; applicant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the main suit

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 a default judgment entered against a guarantor in a banking recovery suit, finding that service of summons was not effective. The court held that service via WhatsApp to a telephone number not registered in the defendant's name and not belonging to him did not constitute effective service under Order 5 rules 9 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant was granted unconditional leave to appear and defend, as his proposed defence raised triable issues of fact and law including denial of indebtedness, alleged misrepresentation in obtaining the guarantee, claims of loan repayment by the principal debtor, and discharge of the guarantor's obligation due to variation of the loan agreement without his consent.

Outcome

Default judgment set aside; applicant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the main suit

Facts

Equity Bank Uganda Limited filed Civil Suit No. 999 of 2023 against Anyijukire Pamela (principal debtor) and Nduho Mugyenyi (guarantor) for recovery of UGX 469,951,744. The bank's process server swore an affidavit of service stating he had served summons on the applicant via WhatsApp to telephone number 0772418786 on 8 September 2023. A default judgment was entered against both defendants on 5 May 2025. The applicant learned of the judgment through a former lawyer of the co-defendant and instructed his own lawyers to investigate. It was discovered that the telephone number used for service was registered in the name of Christine Acaa, not the applicant, and the applicant denied ever receiving the summons or authorising any lawyer to file an earlier application for leave to defend (Miscellaneous Application No. 2217/2023) which had been filed jointly by both defendants but was subsequently closed administratively. The applicant denied indebtedness, claiming the principal debtor had repaid the loan and that he was discharged as guarantor when the bank varied the loan agreement without his consent.

Issues

  1. Whether the application raises sufficient grounds for setting aside the default judgment entered against the applicant vide Civil Suit No. 999/2023.
  2. Whether the applicant should be granted unconditional leave to defend the suit.

Orders

  • The default judgment against the applicant vide Civil Suit No. 999/2023 is hereby set aside.
  • The applicant is granted unconditional leave to appear and defend.
  • The applicant shall file his written statement of defence within 10 days of delivery of this ruling.
  • Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Effectiveness of Service — Electronic Service via WhatsApp
Service of court summons via WhatsApp to a telephone number not registered in the defendant's name and not belonging to the defendant does not constitute effective service under Order 5 rules 9 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, even where the number was provided by the plaintiff.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Multiple Defendants — Requirement of Service on Each Defendant
Where there are more defendants than one, service of summons must be made on each defendant separately pursuant to Order 5 rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and service on one defendant does not constitute service on another defendant.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Default Judgment — Good Cause — Ineffective Service
Under Order 36 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a court may set aside a default judgment if satisfied that service of summons was not effective or for any other good cause, and the court is left in doubt as to whether the defendant was indeed served with court process constitutes sufficient cause justifying setting aside the default judgment.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Granting Leave — Triable Issues
For leave to appear and defend to be granted under Order 36 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, an applicant must show by affidavit or otherwise that there is a bona fide triable issue of fact or law. A triable issue is one capable of being resolved through legal trial and arises when a material proposition of law or fact is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. The defendant is not bound to show a good defence on the merits but should satisfy the court that there is an issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried.
Banking & Finance — Guarantees — Discharge of Guarantor — Variation of Principal Contract
A guarantor may raise as a triable issue the contention that he was discharged from his guarantee obligations when the creditor varied the loan agreement with the principal debtor without the guarantor's knowledge and consent.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (8)

  • Peace Barigye v Rosemary Kizza Omamteker (Miscellaneous Application No. 2075 of 2022)
  • Rwabuganda Godfrey v Bitamisi Namuddu (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 87 of 2010)
  • Geoffrey Gatete and Another v William Kyobe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
  • Florence Nabatanzi v Naome Binsobedde (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 6 of 1987)
  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Jamil Ssenyonjo v Jonathan Bunjo (High Court Civil Suit No. 180 of 2012)
  • Photo Focus (U) Ltd v Group Four Security Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2000)
  • Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya v William Kyobe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nduho Mugyenyi v Equity Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 978 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 141 (17 April 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.