Wakilii

Ntambara v Segawole (Miscellaneous Application No. 1082 of 2019)

High Court · [2020] UGCOMMC 9 · 2020 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte judgment granted in Civil Suit No. 454 of 2004
Decision
Application dismissed; ex parte judgment maintained and execution to proceed

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

Held that the applicant failed to establish that he was not duly served with hearing notices or that he had sufficient cause for non-appearance. The trial court properly proceeded ex parte after the applicant disobeyed court orders to conference the matter and repeatedly failed to appear. The applicant's dilatory conduct, including non-attendance despite being aware of hearing dates and failure to obey court orders, placed him outside the court's consideration. Application to set aside the ex parte judgment dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed; ex parte judgment maintained and execution to proceed

Facts

The applicant was defendant in Civil Suit No. 454 of 2004 concerning a land sale agreement. The matter came before court on multiple dates between June 2006 and September 2007. On several occasions the applicant and his counsel failed to appear. The trial court, noting the applicant's disobedience of court orders to conference the matter and repeated non-attendance, proceeded to hear the plaintiff's case ex parte on 6 September 2007. Ex parte judgment was entered on 14 July 2008, rescinding the contract between the parties due to the defendant's breach. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal in June 2018 and advised the applicant to seek appropriate remedies. The applicant then filed this application in 2019, more than ten years after the ex parte judgment, seeking to set it aside on grounds of lack of service and sufficient cause.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant was duly served with hearing notices for the dates on which the ex parte hearing proceeded.
  2. Whether the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the matter was called for hearing.
  3. Whether the ex parte judgment granted in Civil Suit No. 454 of 2004 should be set aside.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
  • The ex parte judgment of High Court Civil Suit No. 454 of 2004 is maintained and must be executed within the terms set by the court in that judgment.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Judgments — Setting Aside — Proof of Service and Sufficient Cause
An application to set aside an ex parte judgment under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires the applicant to satisfy the court either that summons was not duly served or that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Proceedings — Dilatory Conduct — Disobedience of Court Orders
Where an applicant repeatedly fails to appear in court despite being aware of hearing dates and disobeys court orders, such dilatory conduct justifies the trial court proceeding ex parte and constitutes grounds for refusing to set aside the ex parte judgment.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment — Delay — Abuse of Process
An application to set aside an ex parte judgment filed more than ten years after the judgment, and after an unsuccessful appeal to the Court of Appeal, constitutes dilatory conduct and abuse of court process.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (6)

  • Wamini v Kirima [1969] EA 172
  • Karutara v Mukairu [1978] HCB 215
  • Kingsway Tyres & Automart Ltd v Rafiki Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 220 of 1995)
  • Stone Concrete Limited v Jubilee Insurance Co. Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 358 of 2012)
  • Gahire David v Uwayezu Immaculate (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2008)
  • Ojara Otto Julius v Okwera Benson (Miscellaneous Application No. 23 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ntambara v Segawole (Miscellaneous Application No. 1082 of 2019) [2020] UGCommC 9 (20 March 2020)
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.