Wakilii

Okech v Centenary Rural Development Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 93 of 2019)

High Court · [2020] UGHC 36 · 2020 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte judgment and decree arising from Civil Suit No. 7 of 2013
Decision
Application to set aside ex parte judgment dismissed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 dismissed the application to set aside the ex parte judgment. Although the applicant's former counsel failed to file a reply to the counter claim, the applicant did not demonstrate sufficient cause because he waited one year and four months after judgment before filing the application to set it aside. The delay and lack of urgency indicated negligence and acceptance of the judgment, insufficient to warrant exercising discretion to set aside.

Outcome

Application to set aside ex parte judgment dismissed

Facts

The applicant sued the respondent bank in Civil Suit No. 7 of 2013 for wrongful computation of interest on a lease and overdraft facility. The respondent filed a written statement of defence with a counter claim seeking UGX 138,658,026. The applicant's former counsel failed to file a reply to the counter claim. On 25 April 2018, default judgment was entered against the applicant on the counter claim for the liquidated sum. The parties attempted mediation between 2016 and 2018 without success. The applicant, present when judgment was entered, waited until 10 September 2019 — one year and four months later — to file this application to set aside the judgment, claiming his former counsel's negligence as sufficient cause.

Issues

  1. Whether the application was brought under the correct provision of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing a reply to the counter claim in Civil Suit No. 7 of 2013.
  3. Whether the court should exercise its discretion under Order 9 rule 12 to set aside the default judgment.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Applications to Set Aside Judgments — Procedural Requirements — Correct Rule
An application to set aside a default judgment entered under Order 9 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules must be brought under Order 9 rule 12, not Order 9 rule 27, which applies only to ex parte decrees where a defendant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was heard.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Default Judgments — Good Cause — Delay in Bringing Application
Where an applicant seeks to set aside a default judgment under Order 9 rule 12 on grounds of counsel's negligence, the applicant must demonstrate that he took proactive steps to correct counsel's error once aware of it. A delay of one year and four months in filing the application, with no explanation for the delay, constitutes negligence indicating acceptance of the judgment and is insufficient to establish good cause.
Civil Procedure — Mistake of Counsel — When Errors Will Not Be Visited on Litigant
While the general principle is that a litigant should not suffer for counsel's mistakes, the litigant must show that he was not negligent and took urgent steps to remedy counsel's error. The principle does not apply where the litigant, after becoming aware of an adverse judgment, delays unreasonably in challenging it.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.6
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.12
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.27
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 rr.1 and 3

Cases cited (7)

  • Henry Kawalya v T Kinyankwazi (1975) HCB 386
  • Rosette Kizito v Administrator General and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1986)
  • Fred Kyewalabye v Richard Ssevume and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2004)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (1999)
  • Attorney General v AKPM Lutaaya (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2007)
  • Godfrey Mageze and Brian Mbazua v Sudhir Ruparelia (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 10 of 2002)
  • Joel Kato and Another v Nuulu Nalwoga (Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2012) [2012] UGSC 2

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Okech v Centenary Rural Development Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 93 of 2019) [2020] UGHC 36 (10 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.