Obulejo v Moyo Cooperative Savings & Credit Society Limited (Miscellaneous Application 31 of 2021)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

Application dismissed. Court held that applicant failed to demonstrate ineffective service or raise a triable defence to warrant setting aside the default judgment under Order 36 rule 11 CPR. Affidavits of service provided sufficient proof of effective service, and applicant's bare allegation that the debt claimed was excessive, without proof of the actual amount owed, did not constitute a triable defence.

Outcome

Application to set aside default judgment dismissed; default judgment and decree stand

Facts

The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 2 of 2019 as a summary suit against the applicant and two guarantors for recovery of UGX 403,513,750 being loan principal and accumulated interest. Summons were issued on 15 March 2019 and amended summons on 7 August 2019. An affidavit of service filed on 30 August 2019 indicated the applicant was served on 19 August 2019. None of the defendants filed any application for leave to defend. Default judgment was entered on 27 September 2019. A bill of costs was taxed at UGX 50,221,500 and an order of sale was granted on 17 December 2019. In April 2021, the applicant discovered the proceedings and brought this application, claiming he was never served as he was hospitalised at Nakasero Hospital from 8 August 2019 and later at Kumi Orthopedic Center from November to December 2019. The applicant alleged the debt was excessive but provided no proof of the amount he actually owed.

Issues

1. Whether the default judgment and decree entered by the Registrar should be set aside.
2. Whether service of summons on the applicant was effective.
3. Whether the applicant has raised a triable defence to warrant leave to defend the suit.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (10)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 36 rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 36 rule 11
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 rules 1, 2 and 3
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 9 rule 6
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 36 rule 4
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 36 rule 5
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 22 rule 62
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 5 rule 16
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 5 rule 14

Cases cited (2)

• Post Bank (U) Ltd v Abdu Ssozi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2015)
• Geoffrey Gatete and Another v William Kyobe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Jjuuko & 2 Others v Kironde & 12 Others (Civil Application 1096 of 2023)
• Nassali v Nabateregga (Civil Appeal 58 of 2021)

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