Wakilii

Richard Kisembo and Karumuna Safaris Limited v Pegasus Technologies Limited (Misc. Application No. 1493 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 503 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 127 of 2020 which found applicants in contempt of court
Decision
Application for review dismissed; applicants remain bound by the contempt ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 127 of 2020

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 an application for review of a contempt ruling. The applicants claimed they were not served with hearing notices and that their affidavit in reply was not considered. The court held that registered ECCMIS users are deemed to consent to electronic service and bear the burden of proving system failures. The applicants failed to demonstrate technical glitches or take proactive steps to address non-display of the file on their side. Their failure to comply with mandatory electronic filing processes was attributable to their own negligence, not an error apparent on the record.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; applicants remain bound by the contempt ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 127 of 2020

Facts

The respondent obtained a contempt ruling against the applicants in Miscellaneous Application No. 127 of 2020 on 13 June 2025. The applicants sought review, claiming they were not served with hearing notices for sessions on 7 May 2025 and 4 June 2025, and that the court failed to consider their affidavit in reply filed on 28 February 2020. The applicants were registered ECCMIS users but claimed Miscellaneous Application No. 127 of 2020 did not display on their side of the system. The respondent opposed, stating the application was uploaded to ECCMIS on 21 February 2022, and that the applicants' counsel had appeared on 11 October 2023 and made an oral application. The applicants had been found in contempt in both the head suit and the miscellaneous application.

Issues

  1. Whether the orders of the court in Miscellaneous Application No. 127 of 2020, dated 13th June 2025, should be reviewed and set aside.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Error Apparent on the Face of the Record — Distinction from Mere Erroneous Decision
An error apparent on the face of the record is one where an error on a substantial point of law stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions. An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. If a view adopted by the court is a possible one, it cannot be an error apparent on the face of the record even though another view was also possible.
Civil Procedure — Electronic Filing and Service — ECCMIS — Deemed Consent to Electronic Service by Registered Users
Upon the initiation of a case, filing of responsive pleading, or submission of entry of appearance in a case, registered ECCMIS users are deemed to have consented to receive electronic service of all documents through the system. It is the obligation of registered ECCMIS users to maintain proper delivery information in that system because notices of electronic filing are only sent to persons who have associated themselves with a case.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Party Asserting System Failure Must Prove It
The evidential burden of proof lies with the person who has asserted the existence of certain facts. A registered ECCMIS user who claims that a case file does not display on their side of the system and that this prevented them from receiving or filing court documents must evidentially show to the court, by taking screen shots or other proof, that as of specific dates they have been facing technical glitches. Electronic service will not be effective only if the party filing learns or has reason to know that the ECCMIS filed document was not transmitted successfully, and there should be proof of a system failure, glitch or similar occurrence that occasioned a defect in the transmission.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Severance of Paragraphs Containing Falsehoods
After the promulgation of the 1995 Constitution, courts relaxed the Bitaitana Rule and introduced the doctrine of severance. Where there is falsehood in an affidavit, the offending paragraphs should be severed and the rest of the paragraphs in the affidavit are retained, provided the retained paragraphs are of evidential value to enable the court proceed with the affidavit.
Civil Procedure — Electronic Filing and Service — Mandatory Compliance in Commercial Court
The commercial court operates within a digitalized framework under the ECCMIS and the Judicature (Electronic Filing, Service and Virtual Proceedings) Rules 2025 are designed to facilitate the electronic system. Compliance with this digitalized system is not optional but a mandatory aspect of interacting with the commercial court. A party who finds themselves unable to electronically file or receive court documents should exercise diligence by informing the court to rectify the anomaly. Absent this, the party's averments that they genuinely have no access to the file on ECCMIS cannot succeed.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (9)

  • Anthony Okello v Ojok B'Leo and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 26 of 2006)
  • Sirasi Bitaitana & 4 Others v Emmanuel Kananura (High Court Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1976)
  • Kizza Besigye v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta & Another (Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • FX Mubuuke v UEB (High Court Misc. Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Nyamogo and Nyamogo Advocates v Kago [2001] 2 EA 173
  • Igga Anyi Godfrey and 14 Others v The Registered Trustees of Pentecostal Assemblies of God & Another (High Court Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 0011 of 2016)
  • Nyanzi Fred Sentamu v The Electoral Commission and 2 Others (C.A. Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2021)
  • Male H Mabirizi v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 918 of 2021)
  • Visare (U) Ltd v Festus Kateregga (Miscellaneous Application No. 2855 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Richard Kisembo and Karumuna Safaris Limited v Pegasus Technologies Limited (Misc. Application No. 1493 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 503 (7 September 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.