Wakilii

Rest TV Uganda Limited v Bernard Mabonga and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 902 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 236 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte order and enlarge time for filing affidavit in reply arising from Miscellaneous Cause No. 191 of 2024
Decision
Ex parte order set aside; applicant granted extension of time to file affidavit in reply

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 despite the applicant's failure to file an affidavit in reply due to counsel negligence, the interests of justice required setting aside the ex parte order where the applicant demonstrated promptness in instructing new counsel and filing the application. Settlement negotiations do not excuse non-compliance with court processes, but the applicant's conduct showed willingness to defend the matter on merit.

Outcome

Ex parte order set aside; applicant granted extension of time to file affidavit in reply

Facts

The Respondents filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 191 of 2024 against the Applicant seeking declarations of infringement of image rights and privacy, plus damages. The Applicant was served on 9 May 2025 with a hearing date of 7 July 2025. After service, parties met on 10 June 2025 and agreed to settle out of court for UGX 20,000,000 in three installments. The Applicant instructed M/s Soita & Co. Advocates but they failed to file an affidavit in reply. Neither the Applicant nor counsel appeared on 7 July 2025 or 1 September 2025. The Respondents obtained leave to proceed ex parte. The Applicant then instructed new counsel, M/s Matovu & Matovu Advocates, who filed this application to set aside the ex parte order and enlarge time for filing a reply.

Issues

  1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to set aside the order to proceed ex parte in Miscellaneous Cause No. 191 of 2024.
  2. Whether there is sufficient cause to warrant enlargement of time within which to file an affidavit in reply in Miscellaneous Cause No. 191 of 2024.
  3. What remedies are available to the Applicant.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Ex parte decree in Miscellaneous Cause No. 191 of 2024 set aside.
  • Applicant directed to file affidavit in reply within 5 days from the date of this ruling.
  • Applicant ordered to pay costs of this application to the Respondents.
  • Costs to be assessed and paid at the end of the main cause irrespective of outcome.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders — Sufficient Cause — Negligence of Counsel
Negligence or mistake of counsel should not ordinarily be visited upon a litigant, but the party seeking to set aside an ex parte order must adduce evidence supporting allegations of counsel negligence and demonstrate promptness in instructing new counsel and filing the application.
Civil Procedure — Settlement Negotiations — Effect on Court Processes
An offer to negotiate terms of settlement between parties does not prevent any party from honouring requisite court processes and filing necessary documents; settlement discussions do not excuse non-compliance with procedural requirements.
Civil Procedure — Enlargement of Time — Sufficient Cause — Administration of Justice
Where a party demonstrates willingness to defend an application and acts promptly in instructing new counsel after discovering former counsel's failure to act, the court may enlarge time for filing documents out of time in the interests of justice, as disputes should be heard on merit.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (6)

  • Attorney General v Nabco Enterprises Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 20 of 2019)
  • Kibuuko v Uganda Catholic Lawyers Society and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 696 of 2018)
  • Okurut Joseph and 2 Others v New Bubojjwe Primary School and 2 Others (HCCMA No. 632 of 2013)
  • Peter Mangeni T/A Makerere Institute of Commerce v Departed Asian Property Custodian Board (SCCA No. 13 of 1995)
  • Zena Abdalla Oketto and 2 Others v Mayan Aziz (Miscellaneous Application No. 118 of 2009) [2010] UGHC 87
  • Christopher Nsereko v Nakasumba Mary (CACA No. 71 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rest TV Uganda Limited v Bernard Mabonga and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 902 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 236 (22 December 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.