Wakilii

Norah Naziwa v Babihangaro Ahmed (Civil Suit No. 0027 of 2009; Miscellaneous Application No. 0027 of 2021)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 539 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte judgment arising from Civil Suit No. 0027 of 2009
Decision
Ex parte judgment set aside; matter to proceed inter partes upon service of endorsed defence

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 held that a defendant cannot be blamed for the court's failure to endorse a Written Statement of Defence, as endorsement is solely the court's duty under the Civil Procedure Rules. Where a defendant filed a defence that was never endorsed by the court despite follow-up, this constitutes sufficient cause to set aside an ex parte judgment under Order 9 Rule 27 CPR. The applicant demonstrated a triable issue regarding her status as widow of the deceased, warranting adjudication on the merits.

Outcome

Ex parte judgment set aside; matter to proceed inter partes upon service of endorsed defence

Facts

The applicant was granted leave on 24 April 2018 to file her Written Statement of Defence within 14 days in Civil Suit No. 0027 of 2009. She filed the defence on 28 May 2018, but it was never endorsed by the court despite repeated follow-ups, including a letter dated 24 August 2018. The respondent applied for and obtained an order to proceed ex parte, and judgment was delivered in his favour on 12 March 2020. The applicant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 0044 of 2020 to set aside the ex parte order after the COVID-19 lockdown, but upon hearing on 9 March 2021, she learned that judgment had already been entered against her. She then brought this application to set aside the ex parte judgment, arguing she had filed her defence but the court failed to endorse it.

Issues

  1. Whether the Written Statement of Defence in Civil Suit No. 0027 of 2009 was duly filed.
  2. Whether the Applicant has sufficient cause that merits setting aside the Order to proceed ex parte and the ex parte judgment in Civil Suit No. 0027 of 2009.

Orders

  • The judgment arising out of ex parte proceedings in Civil Suit No. 0027 of 2009 is set aside.
  • The applicant's written statement of defence on the court record be endorsed and accordingly served on the respondent by the applicant.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Filing of Defence — Endorsement by Court — Responsibility for Endorsement
Under the Civil Procedure Rules, the duty to endorse a Written Statement of Defence and affix the court seal is exclusively the court's responsibility, and a defendant cannot be blamed for the absence of such endorsement where the defendant has submitted the defence to the court.
Civil Procedure — Filing of Defence — Two-Step Process — Placing on Record and Service
Filing a defence involves two steps: placing the Written Statement of Defence on the court record and serving the same on the opposite party, both of which must be completed within the prescribed time from receipt of summons.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment — Applicable Rule — Order 9 Rule 27
Where a decree has been passed ex parte against a defendant, the proper rule for setting aside the judgment is Order 9 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules, not Order 9 Rule 12, which applies only to setting aside orders to proceed ex parte before judgment has been entered.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment — Sufficient Cause — Court's Failure to Endorse Defence
A defendant satisfies the requirement of sufficient cause for setting aside an ex parte judgment where the defendant filed a Written Statement of Defence that was never endorsed by the court despite the defendant's follow-up efforts, as the failure to endorse is attributable to the court and not to the defendant's negligence.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment — Plausible Defence — Triable Issues
When setting aside an ex parte judgment, the applicant must demonstrate a plausible defence that raises triable issues meriting adjudication on the merits.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (5)

  • Simon Tendo Kabenge v Barclays Bank (U) Ltd & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2015)
  • Carlton Douglas Kasirye v Sheena Ahumuza Bageine (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 150 of 2020)
  • Nicholas Rousos v Gulam Hussein Habib (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • Parimal vs. Veerna Civil Appeal No. 1467 of 2011
  • Forthill Bakery Supply Co. v Wangoe [1958] EA 118

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Norah Naziwa v Babihangaro Ahmed (Civil Suit No. 0027 of 2009; Miscellaneous Application No. 0027 of 2021) [2026] UGHC 539 (27 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.