Wakilii

Ritah Mugenyi Trading as Josen Vegetable Growers v Multilines International Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 501 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 489 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside default judgment entered in summary suit for debt recovery
Decision
Default judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 0864 of 2022 remain in force

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 a default judgment. The applicant failed to prove she instructed her former lawyer to file an application for leave to appear and defend within the statutory timeline. Service of summons on the applicant's lawyer was effective. The principle that mistakes of counsel should not be visited on a litigant does not apply where the litigant is privy to the default or fails to give due instructions. The applicant also failed to demonstrate a plausible defence to the underlying debt claim.

Outcome

Default judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 0864 of 2022 remain in force

Facts

The respondent obtained a default judgment in Civil Suit No. 0864 of 2022 for USD 14,356.15 arising from unpaid freight and logistics services provided to the applicant between October 2021 and January 2022. Summons were served on the applicant's lawyer on 17 October 2022. The lawyer failed to file an application for leave to appear and defend within the statutory period. Default judgment was entered on 30 November 2022. The applicant learned of execution proceedings via WhatsApp and engaged new counsel who filed this application to set aside the default judgment. The applicant claimed her former lawyer failed to act despite instructions, that she had paid the respondent, and that counsel's negligence should not be visited upon her.

Issues

  1. Whether there exists good or sufficient cause to warrant setting aside of the default judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 0864 of 2022.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Default Judgment — Service of Summons — Effectiveness of Service on Advocate
Service of summons on a party's advocate is presumed to be duly communicated to the party and is effectual for all purposes as if served on the party in person under Order 3 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Default Judgment — Good Cause — Burden of Proof
An applicant seeking to set aside a default judgment under Order 36 Rule 11 bears the burden of showing good cause, which requires a legally sufficient reason or justifiable explanation for the failure to comply with procedural requirements.
Civil Procedure — Advocate's Negligence — When Visited on Litigant — Privy to Default
While mistakes of counsel should generally not be visited on a litigant, this principle does not apply where the litigant is privy to the default or where the default results from the litigant's failure to give due instructions to the advocate.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Default Judgment — Plausible Defence — Standard Required
To succeed in setting aside a default judgment, an applicant must establish more than a defence or issue which should be adjudicated; the applicant must raise a defence which is likely to succeed at trial and cannot merely assert the existence of a plausible defence without substantiation.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (11)

  • Attorney General v Wazuri Medicare Limited (HCMA No. 283 of 2023)
  • Pinnacle Projects v Business in Motion Consultants (HCMA No. 362 of 2010)
  • Dr. B.B Byamugisha v Alison Kantarama (HCMA No. 229 of 2019)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (SCCA No. 8 of 1998)
  • Andrew Bamanya v Shamsherali Zaye (CAC Application No. 70 of 2001)
  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulamhussein Habib Virani & Another (SC Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • Captain Philip Ongom v Catherine Nyero Owota (SC Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2001)
  • Alpine Bulk Transport Inc v Saudi Eagle Shipping Co Inc [1986]2 Lloyd's Rep 221
  • Mugona John and Another v Muhereza Yason (HC Misc. Application No. 19 & 0317 of 2023)
  • Twiga Chemical v Bamusedde [2005] 2 EA 325
  • Shah v Mbogo [1967] EA 116

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ritah Mugenyi Trading as Josen Vegetable Growers v Multilines International Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 501 of 2023) [2025] UGCommC 489 (31 October 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.