Wakilii

Semakula Ismael I v Lydia Kintu and 2 Others [2026] UGHCLD 82

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion to set aside an ex parte/default judgment and decree and for leave to file a defence, with a prayer for stay of execution
Decision
Application dismissed; ex parte judgment and decree confirmed as valid and execution permitted to proceed

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 an application to set aside an ex parte judgment. It held that where personal service proves impracticable, substituted service by newspaper advertisement made under a court order and published within the twenty-one day currency of the summons is valid service; the court was satisfied the summons were duly published. Since service was duly effected, the burden shifted to the applicant to show other sufficient cause under Order 9 rule 27 for failing to appear, which he failed to do given unrebutted evidence of telephone and WhatsApp contact. A purported plausible defence, unsupported by any draft written statement of defence, cannot alone justify setting aside a judgment where no sufficient cause is shown.

Outcome

Application dismissed; ex parte judgment and decree confirmed as valid and execution permitted to proceed

Facts

Judgment in Civil Suit No. 578 of 2019 was entered ex parte against the applicant on 16 August 2024, the trial court finding that he had fraudulently registered subdivided plots in his own names without the 1st respondent's consent or knowledge. Summons to file a defence had been issued on 1 July 2019 and, after unsuccessful attempts at personal service, the court ordered substituted service on 29 October 2020. The summons were advertised in the Saturday Monitor on 21 November 2020. The process server had also contacted the applicant by telephone and a hearing notice was transmitted by WhatsApp with confirmed delivery. The applicant claimed he only learnt of the suit in March 2025 through his own inquiries, that he was never personally served, that the newspaper publication omitted the plaint and was made after the summons had expired, and that amended plaints filed in 2021 and 2022 were never served. He asserted his dealings in the suit land were authorised and known to the respondents but attached no draft written statement of defence. The 2nd respondent had already satisfied taxed costs and execution had partly progressed.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant was effectively and duly served with court process in Civil Suit No. 578 of 2019.
  2. Whether the applicant showed sufficient cause to set aside the ex parte/default judgment and execution.
  3. Whether the applicant disclosed a plausible defence to the suit.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The ex parte/default judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 578 of 2019 remains valid and enforceable.
  • Execution of the decree in Civil Suit No. 578 of 2019 shall proceed accordingly.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Summons — Substituted Service by Newspaper Advertisement
Personal service of summons is the rule under Order 5 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, but where personal service proves impracticable the court may authorise substituted service under Order 5 rule 13, including by advertisement in a newspaper of wide circulation.
Civil Procedure — Service of Summons — Currency of Summons and Computation of Time
Substituted service by advertisement is valid where the publication is effected within the twenty-one day period prescribed by Order 5 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, computed in accordance with section 34(1) of the Interpretation Act, so that the summons have not expired at the date of publication.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment — Sufficient Cause — Burden of Proof
Where the court finds that summons were duly served, including by lawful substituted service, the burden shifts to the applicant to demonstrate some other sufficient cause under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules for the failure to enter appearance or file a defence; unrebutted evidence of actual knowledge through telephone and electronic communication points to inaction or disregard of court process rather than sufficient cause.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment — Plausible Defence — Requirement of Draft Written Statement of Defence
The existence of a plausible defence raising triable issues is not by itself sufficient to set aside an ex parte judgment where no sufficient cause has been shown for the failure to appear, and assertions of a defence unsupported by a draft written statement of defence remain without particulars and untested on the record.
Civil Procedure — Execution — Stay Pending Application to Set Aside Judgment
A judgment lawfully obtained ex parte remains valid and enforceable, and a party who fails to demonstrate sufficient cause for non-appearance cannot rely on alleged defences to impede its execution.
Land & Property — Fraudulent Registration — Strict Proof of Fraud
Allegations of fraud in the registration of land require strict proof, and a finding of fraud made on the evidence on record stands notwithstanding the defendant's absence from the proceedings.

Legislation cited (12)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Judicature Act s.37
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.12
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.27
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.22 r.26
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 rr.1 & 3
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.5 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.5 r.1(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.5 r.10
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.5 r.13
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.5 r.18
  • Interpretation Act s.34(1)

Cases cited (10)

  • Adiit Mark Raymond v Aisha Daisy Buruku (Miscellaneous Application No. 1533 of 2025)
  • Commissioner Land Registration v Kutesa (Miscellaneous Application No. 130 of 2011)
  • Kisuule and Another v Kyeyune and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 6 of 2024)
  • Valery Alia v Alionzi John (Civil Suit No. 157 of 2010)
  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Issa Bukenya (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1991)
  • Rosette Kizito v Administrator General and Others (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1986)
  • Wakabala & Co. Advocates v Banyenzaki (Miscellaneous Application No. 802 of 2019)
  • Registered Trustees of the Archdiocese of Dar es Salaam Vs Bunju Village Government & Others Civil Appeal No. 147 of 2006
  • Visare Uganda Limited v Muwema & Company Advocates and Solicitors (Miscellaneous Application No. 826 of 2022)
  • Mulondo Kenneth v Fred Kirenga (Miscellaneous Application No. 741 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Semakula Ismael I v Lydia Kintu and 2 Others [2026] UGHCLD 82 (14 April 2026)
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.