Rutetebya v BF Suma Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 891 of 2024)
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
Court held that Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, though not expressly stating so, permits courts to enter interlocutory judgments against defendants who fail to file defences in multi-defendant suits. Interlocutory judgment set aside where applicant's defence was plausible and her evidence would materially assist in determining vicarious liability issues, despite applicant's indolence in failing to follow up on the matter after forwarding process to employer's counsel. Justice required that applicant be heard before disposal of main suit.
Outcome
Interlocutory judgment set aside; applicant granted leave to file defence out of time; hearing reopened
Facts
The Applicant was the 2nd Defendant in Civil Suit No. 0065 of 2023, which arose from an alleged breach of contract when the Respondent hired the 1st Defendant's ballroom for a workshop on 21st September 2022. As the 1st Defendant's Sales Executive Officer, the Applicant had handled all bookings for the event. An interlocutory judgment was entered against all defendants on 30th March 2023 when they failed to file defences. The Applicant claims she was served with court process, forwarded it to the 1st Defendant's in-house lawyer who assured her he would handle the matter, then left employment and forgot about the case. She only learned the case was ongoing in May 2024 when a friend saw a hearing notice in a newspaper. The 3rd and 4th Defendants had actually filed a joint defence on 13th February 2023, within time, yet the interlocutory judgment was erroneously entered against them as well.
Issues
- Whether the Interlocutory Judgment entered on 30th March 2023 in Civil Suit No. 0065 of 2023 should be set aside as against the Applicant.
- Whether Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules permits courts to enter interlocutory judgments against defendants who fail to file defences in suits involving several defendants.
- Whether the Applicant has shown sufficient cause to warrant setting aside the interlocutory judgment under Order 9 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Orders
- The Interlocutory Judgment entered on 30th March 2023 in Civil Suit No. 0065 of 2023 is set aside as against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants therein.
- The Applicant is granted leave to file her written statement of defence out of time.
- The Applicant shall file her written statement of defence to Civil Suit No. 0065 of 2023 within 10 (ten) days from the date of this order.
- The hearing of Civil Suit No. 0065 of 2023 is reopened and the Court shall fix and hear the Applicant's defence to the claims therein after closure of pleadings.
- Costs of this application shall abide by the outcome of Civil Suit No. 0065 of 2023.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
Cases cited (2)
- Nicholas Roussos v Gulam Hussein Habib Virani (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
- The Commissioner General, Uganda Revenue Authority v Edulink Holdings Ltd & 2 Others (High Court Civil Appeal No. 178 of 2021)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.