RM Market Links & 3 Ors v Ugafin (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 334 of 2019)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

Held that the service of summons on the 2nd applicant was effective, having been served on 5 November 2014 at the company premises. The 2nd applicant failed to demonstrate good cause for setting aside the default judgment, as the grounds raised did not constitute legally sufficient reasons preventing timely application for leave to defend. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application to set aside default judgment dismissed

Facts

The respondent advanced loans to the 1st applicant, a company, guaranteed by the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th applicants who were directors. Default judgment was entered on 17 March 2015 against all defendants jointly and severally for UGX 133,405,250. Summons were first served on 24 June 2014, then fresh summons issued and served on 5 November 2014. The parties attempted out-of-court settlement which failed. After the decree was extracted and the matter taxed, the 2nd applicant brought this application seeking to set aside the default judgment on grounds that summons had expired, service was ineffective, the interest rate was unconscionable, and he had a good defence. In a letter dated 24 February 2014, the 2nd applicant had written acknowledging indebtedness and citing business setbacks.

Issues

1. Whether the service of summons on the 2nd applicant was effective.
2. Whether there was good cause to set aside the default judgment and decree under Order 36 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
3. Whether the 2nd applicant should be granted leave to appear and defend the underlying suit.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (10)

• Civil Procedure Act s.9
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 r.12
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 r.4
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 r.11
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 51 r.6
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 r.2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 r.3
• Money Lenders Act s.12

Cases cited (6)

• Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 63
• Zebra Telecom and 2 Others v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 184 of 2014)
• David Ssesanga v Greenland Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (Miscellaneous Application No. 406 of 2006)
• Pinnacle Projects Ltd v Business in Motion (Miscellaneous Application No. 362 of 2010)
• Mugo v Wanjiri [1970] EA 481
• Jubilee Insurance Co. Ltd v Fifi Transporters Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 211 of 2008)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Bakoomba Ruth Nabirye and Another v DFCU Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 2025)

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