Wakilii

Reconciling Gospel World Wide Ltd & 3 Ors v Ataleyeba & Anor (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 264 of 2015)

High Court · [2015] UGCOMMC 155 · 2015 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application arising from Civil Suit No. 163 of 2015, opposed by three preliminary objections
Decision
Application dismissed with directions to file proper application to set aside default judgment and thereafter apply for leave to appear and defend

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

Held that where there is a stamp showing fees paid but no receipt number, the applicant must ensure proper documentation before the matter can proceed. Held that Order 1 Rule 12 applies to all multi-party suits, not only representative suits, and requires written authority where one party acts for another; each party must file individual affidavits unless authority is granted. Held that a registrar who enters default judgment becomes functus officio and lacks power to set it aside; however, the High Court is not functus officio as registrar's orders are appealable to a judge under Order 50 Rule 8. Application dismissed with directions to file proper application to set aside default judgment.

Outcome

Application dismissed with directions to file proper application to set aside default judgment and thereafter apply for leave to appear and defend

Facts

Applicants filed High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 264 of 2015 arising from Civil Suit No. 163 of 2015. On 14 April 2015, the Deputy Registrar entered a default judgment against the applicants but later recalled the order on the basis that respondents had not made a proper application. Respondents raised three preliminary objections: that court fees had not been paid; that the affidavit in support was deposed by the second applicant without authority from the other three applicants contrary to Order 1 Rule 12(2); and that the court was functus officio because a default judgment had been entered and recalled. The record showed a stamp indicating fees paid but no receipt number. The second applicant deposed the affidavit in support without written authority from co-applicants. The second respondent deposed the affidavit in reply without authority from the first respondent.

Issues

  1. Whether the application was properly before court where court fees had not been clearly paid or receipted.
  2. Whether an affidavit deposed by one applicant without written authority from co-applicants is competent under Order 1 Rule 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  3. Whether the court was functus officio where a Deputy Registrar had entered a default judgment and later set aside the same without a proper application.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Applicants directed to file the proper application to set aside the default judgment entered on 14 April 2015 by the registrar, and thereafter to apply for leave to appear and defend the head suit if granted.
  • Each party to bear own costs in respect of this application.
  • Applicants must ensure court fees for this dismissed application are paid and proof produced before any other application in relation to this matter is heard.

Rules and key headnotes

Court Fees — Proof of Payment — Duty to Produce Receipt Number
Where a party seeks to bring an application before court, it is the duty of that party to ensure that the record reflects correct proof of payment of court fees, including the receipt number, as courts do not take lightly the issue of non-payment of court dues.
Multi-Party Proceedings — Written Authority Under Order 1 Rule 12 — Scope of Application
Order 1 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies to all suits where there is more than one plaintiff or defendant, not only to representative suits. Where one party is to act for another, written signed authority must be filed. Each party must file their own affidavit unless written authority to act is granted.
Registrar's Powers — Functus Officio — Default Judgment
A registrar who enters a default judgment becomes functus officio and does not have the power to set aside that judgment. A registrar who purports to set aside their own order does so under a wrong premise of law, and the default judgment continues to persist. The High Court is not functus officio, as orders of the registrar may be appealed to a judge under Order 50 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (5)

  • A.K.P.M Lutaaya v Attorney General (Civil Reference No. 1 of 2007)
  • Alcon International Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda and 2 Others (Taxation Cause No. 1 of 2012)
  • Mukuye Steven and 106 Others v Madhvani Group Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 821 of 2013)
  • M/S Simon Tendo Kabenge and Another v Mineral Access Systems Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 570 of 2011)
  • UNTA Exports v East African Customs and Management Authority [1970] EA

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Reconciling Gospel World Wide Ltd & 3 Ors v Ataleyeba & Anor (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 264 of 2015) [2015] UGCommC 155 (10 June 2015)
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.