Wakilii

Raid Technologies Ltd and Mutebi Denis v KCB Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No.1856 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 472 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside default judgment arising from Civil Suit No. 0449 of 2025
Decision
Default judgment set aside; applicants granted leave to file defence out of time

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 counsel's error in miscalculating the defence filing deadline due to incorrectly recording the service date constituted good cause under Order 9 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules to set aside the default judgment. The court distinguished between good cause and sufficient cause, finding that good cause requires a lesser degree of proof and may be established notwithstanding the party's own error. The applicants demonstrated genuine intent to defend by filing their defence belatedly and seeking relief expeditiously, warranting the court's exercise of discretion to advance justice over procedural technicality.

Outcome

Default judgment set aside; applicants granted leave to file defence out of time

Facts

The applicants were served with plaint and summons on 12 May 2025, while the third defendant in the main suit was served on 20 May 2025. The applicants' counsel inadvertently recorded the third defendant's service date as applicable to all defendants and calculated the defence filing deadline from 20 May 2025. A joint written statement of defence was filed on 1 June 2025, which was timely for the third defendant but seven days late for the applicants who had been served earlier. The respondent obtained a default judgment against the applicants on 25 June 2025, with decree dated 7 July 2025. The applicants filed this application seeking to set aside the default judgment on the ground that the delay resulted from counsel's genuine clerical error in recording service dates.

Issues

  1. Whether there is good cause to set aside the default judgment and its decree

Orders

  • The default judgment and/or decree in HCCS No. 0449 of 2025 is hereby set aside.
  • The Applicants are granted leave to file their Written Statement of Defence within 7 days from the date of this ruling.
  • The respondent shall file a reply to the Written Statement of Defence within 5 days from the filing of the Written Statement of Defence.
  • The parties are directed to file their pretrial documents within 21 days from the date of the reply to the Written Statement of Defence.
  • The parties are to appear for the scheduling conference of the case on 12 March 2026 at 9am.
  • The Applicants shall bear the Respondent's cost for this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Default Judgment — Good Cause — Distinction from Sufficient Cause
Under Order 9 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules, an applicant seeking to set aside a default judgment must establish good cause, which requires a lesser degree of proof than sufficient cause and may be present notwithstanding the party's own error, whereas sufficient cause necessitates showing that default is unavoidable and not attributable to the applicant.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Default Judgment — Counsel's Error as Good Cause
Counsel's inadvertent error in miscalculating a procedural deadline due to incorrect recording of a service date constitutes good cause for setting aside a default judgment where the applicant demonstrates genuine intent to defend the suit by filing a defence, albeit belatedly, and seeking relief expeditiously.
Civil Procedure — Judicial Discretion — Advancement of Justice over Procedural Technicality
The court retains inherent jurisdiction to advance justice unimpeded by minor procedural transgressions, and to deny a party opportunity to defend on the basis of a technical procedural default would compromise the court's repute as a forum dedicated to doing justice.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (7)

  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Issa Bukenya (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1991)
  • Pinnacle Projects v Business in Motion Consultants (HCMA No. 362 of 2010)
  • Dr. B.B Byamugisha v Alison Kantarama (HCMA No. 229 of 2019)
  • Parimal v Veema Civil Appeal No. 1467 of 2011
  • Arjun Singh v Mohindra Kumar & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 993
  • Mount Meru Millers v Atlas Cargo Systems (HCMA No. 806 of 2022)
  • Fred Byamukama & Anor v Micheal Katungye (HCMA No. 773 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Raid Technologies Ltd and Mutebi Denis v KCB Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No.1856 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 472 (16 November 2025)
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.