Wakilii

Rose Muwangala suing through her lawful attorney Muwangala Aggrey v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Miscellaneous Application 66 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 988 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ex parte application arising from Civil Suit No. 76 of 2010 seeking to compel the Executive Secretary of a co-defendant to enter appearance and testify
Decision
Application dismissed; applicant to concentrate on her own defence in the main suit

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

A co-defendant has no procedural right to compel another defendant to enter appearance in a suit. The duty to ensure all defendants are properly served and have entered appearance lies with the plaintiff, not co-defendants. Where a defendant fails to appear, the plaintiff may apply to proceed ex parte or seek judgment in default of appearance under Order 9 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. A co-defendant cannot compel an unresponsive co-defendant to testify without that party first entering appearance and submitting to the court's jurisdiction.

Outcome

Application dismissed; applicant to concentrate on her own defence in the main suit

Facts

Rose Muwangala, the 1st defendant in Civil Suit No. 76 of 2010, brought an ex parte application seeking to compel the Executive Secretary of the 3rd defendant (Departed Asians Property Custodian Board) to enter appearance and testify. The applicant alleged that the Executive Secretary had been served with witness summons on several occasions since 2010 but failed to appear. The applicant contended that the Executive Secretary's testimony was crucial because he had issued various documents contained in the exhibits before court, and these documents could only be properly identified by him. The applicant argued that without his testimony, the documents might be expunged from the court record, causing injustice to the parties.

Issues

  1. Whether a co-defendant can bring an application to compel another defendant to enter appearance in a suit where both are sued.

Orders

  • Application dismissed as misconceived and not grounded in law or any known court procedures.
  • Costs shall abide in the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appearance — Duty to Ensure Defendants Enter Appearance — Plaintiff's Responsibility
The duty to ensure that all defendants are properly served with summons and have entered appearance in a suit lies with the plaintiff, not with co-defendants.
Civil Procedure — Appearance — Co-Defendant's Right to Compel Another Defendant to Appear — No Procedural Right
A co-defendant has no procedural right or obligation under the Civil Procedure Rules to compel another defendant to enter appearance in a suit where both are sued.
Civil Procedure — Default of Appearance — Remedies Available to Plaintiff
Where a defendant fails to enter appearance after proper service, the plaintiff may apply to proceed ex parte against that defendant or seek judgment in default of appearance under Order 9 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Witness Summons — Compelling Testimony Without Appearance — Jurisdiction
A court cannot compel an unresponsive co-defendant to testify without that party first entering appearance and submitting to the court's jurisdiction, as a witness summons is a subpoena that presupposes submission to the court's authority.

Legislation cited (11)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rose Muwangala suing through her lawful attorney Muwangala Aggrey v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Miscellaneous Application 66 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 988 (3 August 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.