Wakilii

Securex Agencies (U) Ltd v Farm Engineering Industries Ltd and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 385 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 341 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte judgment and decree arising from Civil Suit No. 666 of 2016
Decision
Application dismissed; ex parte judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 666 of 2016 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 an ex parte judgment on the ground that it was res judicata, being the fourth attempt by the applicant to challenge the same ex parte order. The court found that the applicant had been granted an opportunity to defend the matter in a previous application but failed to appear, and that the applicant's repeated filing of similar applications constituted abuse of court process. The court also found that the applicant was complicit in the dilatory conduct of its counsel and could not hide behind the defence of mistake of counsel.

Outcome

Application dismissed; ex parte judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 666 of 2016 remain in force

Facts

The respondents sued the applicant in Civil Suit No. 666 of 2016 for breach of contract and special damages of UGX 61,764,934. The applicant filed a defence but failed to appear at multiple hearings despite being granted opportunities to do so. The court allowed the respondents to proceed ex parte and delivered judgment on 30 December 2024. The applicant then filed this application, its fourth attempt, to set aside the ex parte judgment, claiming mistake of counsel. The respondents opposed, arguing that the application was res judicata and an abuse of process. The court record showed that the applicant had previously filed three similar applications (Miscellaneous Applications No. 671/2023, 405/2024, and 1306/2024), the first of which was granted but the applicant still failed to appear. The applicant also participated in post-judgment taxation proceedings while simultaneously seeking to set aside the judgment.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is res judicata?
  2. Whether the application raises good or sufficient cause to warrant the setting aside of the ex parte judgment and decree granted in High Court Civil Suit No. 666 of 2016?

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the respondents.
  • Costs of the application to be jointly borne by KSMO Advocates and the applicant for orchestration of continued abuse of court process.

Rules and key headnotes

Res Judicata — Repeated Applications — Same Relief Between Same Parties
Where a party repeatedly files applications seeking the same relief between the same parties before the same court, and the matter has been previously determined on its merits, the subsequent applications are res judicata and constitute an abuse of court process.
Mistake of Counsel — Litigant's Complicity — Dilatory Conduct
The principle that mistake of counsel should not be visited on a litigant does not apply where the litigant is complicit in the counsel's dilatory conduct, fails to exercise due diligence in following up on their case, or continues to engage the same counsel despite claiming they were not properly represented.
Advocates — Notice of Change of Advocates — Requirement for Instructions
An advocate has no authority to act for a party without proper instructions, and where an advocate appears without filing a notice of change of advocates or notice of instructions, their representation is incompetent and any submissions filed may be rendered a nullity.
Abuse of Process — Syndicated Attempts by Multiple Law Firms
Where multiple law firms appear to coordinate in filing repeated applications without proper notices of change of advocates, and where different firms draft, file, and argue the same application, this constitutes a syndicated abuse of court process warranting dismissal with costs against both the litigant and the offending counsel.
Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment — Participation in Post-Judgment Proceedings
Where a party participates in post-judgment proceedings including taxation and settlement negotiations while simultaneously seeking to set aside the judgment, such conduct demonstrates that the application to set aside is an afterthought and not brought in good faith.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (10)

  • Njanju vs Wambugu & Another Nairobi High Court Civil Suit No. 2340/1991 (unreported)
  • Lakhman Bhimji v Manor Developments Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 105 of 2010)
  • Kabale Housing Estates Tenants Association v Kabale Municipal Local Council (Court of Appeal No. 15 of 2013)
  • Danish Mercantile Co. Limited vs Beamont & Anor. (1951) Ch.CA 680
  • Okodoi George & Anor vs Okello Opaire Sam HCT-04-CV-MA-143/2016
  • Capt. Philip Ongom v Catherine Nyero Owota (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2001)
  • M/s Tad Beer Trading Center (U) Ltd v Caroline Blackburrn Amero (Miscellaneous Application No. 571 of 2024)
  • Hakan Turkmen & Another v Petua Kateeba (Miscellaneous Application No. 619 of 2024)
  • Joel Kato & Anor v Nuulu Nalwoga (Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2012)
  • Ganatra vs Ganatra [2007] 1 EA 76

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Securex Agencies (U) Ltd v Farm Engineering Industries Ltd and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 385 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 341 (22 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.