Prepaid Meters Limited and Others v Maru Capital Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2628 of 2025)
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 dismissed the application to set aside the default judgment, finding that service of the summons was effective and the applicants failed to prove good cause for not filing a defence. However, the court set aside the execution proceedings, holding that service of execution notices by email was ineffective where there was no evidence the email address belonged to the applicant or had been used for prior communication between the parties.
Outcome
Default judgment upheld; execution proceedings set aside
Facts
The 1st applicant, Prepaid Meters Limited, obtained a loan of UGX 58,296,000 from the respondent in 2022, repayable in three months with 7% monthly interest. The 2nd and 3rd applicants issued a deed of guarantee. The applicants made payments totalling UGX 60,000,000 but the respondent claimed an outstanding balance of UGX 43,183,920. The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 984 of 2024 claiming UGX 96,231,280. The summons was served on the 2nd applicant personally at KCB Bank Ndeeba on 22 August 2023. The applicants failed to file an application for leave to defend and a default judgment was entered. The respondent proceeded with execution, filing a bill of costs which was taxed after the 2nd applicant attended a pre-taxation meeting and consented to costs of UGX 8,371,554. The respondent then filed Execution Miscellaneous Application No. 0042 of 2025 and served notices to show cause by email. A warrant of arrest was issued for the 2nd and 3rd applicants on 17 March 2025.
Issues
- Whether the default judgment should be set aside.
- Whether execution of the decree in Civil Suit No. 984 of 2024 should be set aside for failure to serve the hearing notices of Execution Proceedings in EMA No. 0042 of 2025.
Orders
- Application to set aside default judgment dismissed.
- Execution proceedings in Execution Miscellaneous Application No. 0042 of 2025 set aside.
- Execution orders issued under Execution Miscellaneous Application No. 0042 of 2025 set aside.
- Costs of the application awarded to the applicants.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (13)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 Rule 12
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 Rule 27
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rule 1
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rule 2
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 Rule 11
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 Rule 2
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 Rule 3(1)
- Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)
- Evidence Act Cap 8 s.101
- Evidence Act Cap 8 s.102
- Evidence Act Cap 8 s.103
- Constitution (Integration of ICT into the Adjudication Processes for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions No. 6 of 2019 Rule 5(2)(a)
Cases cited (9)
- Saggu v Road Motor Cycles (U) Ltd [2002] 1 EA 258
- Ogbagiorgis v Nakaye & 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2918 of 2024)
- Post Bank (U) Limited v Abdu Ssozi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 08 of 2015)
- Busoga Co-operative Union Limited v Dharmesh (Miscellaneous Application No. 408 of 2010)
- Geoffrey Gatete v William Kyobe (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
- Guliano Garigio v Claudio Casadio (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 1 of 2013)
- Male H. Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 843 of 2021)
- Abela v Baadarani [2013] UKSC 44
- Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.