Wakilii

Pavement Civil Works Ltd v Andrew Krungi (Miscellaneous Application 292 of 2002)

High Court · [2002] UGHCCD 30 · 2002 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside exparte decree and consent order arising from summary suit
Decision
Application to set aside decree dismissed; decree remains in force

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 Order 9 rule 24 Civil Procedure Rules does not apply to decrees entered under summary procedure Order 33. A decree under Order 33 is not exparte where no application for leave to defend was sought and no defence filed. The proper remedy for setting aside such a decree is not by motion under Order 9 rule 24. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application to set aside decree dismissed; decree remains in force

Facts

Andrew Krungi brought a summary suit against Pavement Civil Works Ltd. On 8 April 2002 one Kahwa A.B. Martin, identifying as Director of Pavement Civil Works Ltd, acknowledged receipt of the summons and admitted the debt, pledging to arrange payment. On 19 April 2002 the Registrar entered decree for UGX 60,173,050 under Order 33 rule 3. On 13 May 2002 a consent order named Compromise Cum Order of Satisfaction was entered, varying the decree to partial satisfaction with payment in instalments. Pavement Civil Works Ltd then brought this application under Order 9 rule 24 seeking to set aside both the decree and consent order, claiming they were exparte. The respondent objected on grounds the application was incompetent.

Issues

  1. Whether the application to set aside the decree under Order 9 rule 24 was competent where the decree was entered under summary procedure Order 33.
  2. Whether a decree entered under Order 33 without leave to defend being sought constitutes an exparte decree.
  3. Whether a consent order in execution can be set aside under Order 9 rule 24 or requires an application for review.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.
  • Interim order earlier vacated.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Order 33 — Setting Aside Decrees — Inapplicability of Order 9 rule 24
Order 9 rule 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not apply to decrees entered under summary procedure Order 33.
Civil Procedure — Exparte Decrees — Definition — Decrees Under Order 33
A decree entered under Order 33 without an application for leave to defend is not an exparte decree. The issues of appearance or defending which must exist to determine if a matter was exparte are irrelevant in Order 33 procedure, which does not employ the term exparte.
Civil Procedure — Consent Decrees — Mode of Setting Aside
A consent decree cannot be set aside by appeal or by motion. The appropriate mode for setting aside a consent decree is by application for review, not under Order 9 rule 24.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Ladak Abdallah v Griffin Isingoma (Court of Appeal No. 8 of 1995)
  • Naqqitta Kafuma vrs Kimbowa Builders & Contractors M.B. 189/73
  • Maqon v Ottoman Bank (1958) EA 156

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Pavement Civil Works Ltd v Andrew Krungi (Miscellaneous Application 292 of 2002) [2002] UGHCCD 30 (10 June 2002)
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.