Wakilii

Security Group (U) Limited & Another v Kasolo (Miscellaneous Application 2565 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 276 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside court order granting leave to proceed exparte in Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2023
Decision
Application dismissed; applicants may pursue remedy by applying to set aside exparte judgment after it is delivered

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 held that once it has granted leave to proceed exparte and pronounced a final order, it becomes functus officio and has no authority to reverse that order. An application to set aside an exparte order before delivery of the exparte judgment is premature. The proper remedy is to wait for judgment and then apply to set aside the exparte judgment under Order 9 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application was dismissed as irregular and an abuse of court process.

Outcome

Application dismissed; applicants may pursue remedy by applying to set aside exparte judgment after it is delivered

Facts

The applicants sought to set aside the High Court's order granting the respondent leave to proceed exparte in Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2023. The applicants were served with hearing notices but arrived late after the court had already granted the respondent leave to proceed exparte. Counsel for the applicants attempted to make submissions but the court expunged them on the basis that it was functus officio. The respondent raised preliminary objections arguing the application was premature since no exparte judgment had been delivered, and that the supporting affidavit was defective because the deponent lacked proper authorization.

Issues

  1. Whether the application to set aside an order granting leave to proceed exparte is premature and an abuse of court process.
  2. Whether the application is supported by a defective affidavit sworn by a person without proper authorization.

Orders

  • First preliminary objection upheld.
  • Application dismissed as premature and an abuse of court process.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Functus Officio — Court Order Granting Leave to Proceed Exparte — Finality of Order
Once a court has pronounced a final order granting leave to proceed exparte, it is functus officio and has no authority to reverse that order before delivering the exparte judgment, as its jurisdiction in granting that leave has been fully exercised.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Exparte Orders — Prematurity — Proper Procedure
An application to set aside an order granting leave to proceed exparte is premature when filed before the delivery of the exparte judgment. The proper remedy is to wait for the exparte judgment to be delivered and then apply to set it aside under Order 9 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers — Limits on Exercise
The inherent powers of the court under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 33 of the Judicature Act must be exercised judiciously to meet the ends of justice and prevent abuse of court process, and do not permit a court to reopen a matter it has already concluded by final order.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (8)

  • Ex parte Hookey; In the Matter of the Jusca Coal and Iron Company (1862) 4 DE G F & J 456
  • A.K.P.M Lutaaya v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Reference No. 1 of 2007)
  • Capt. Philip Ongom v Catherine Nyero Owota (SCCA No. 14 of 2001)
  • Kabale Housing Estate Tenants Association Ltd v Kabale Municipal Local Government Council (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 15 of 2013)
  • Macfoy v United Africa Ltd [1961] 3 All ER 1169
  • M.H.K Engineering Services Uganda Ltd v Macdowell Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 825 of 2018)
  • Kasolo v Security Group (U) Ltd and Another (Civil Appeal No. 212 of 2020)
  • Jules Joseph Delahaije Genruda and Others v Kasolo Robins Ellis (HCMA No. 1221 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Security Group (U) Limited & Another v Kasolo (Miscellaneous Application 2565 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 276 (19 February 2024)
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.