Wakilii

Semakula Ismael I v Lydia Kintu and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 0889 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 82 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte judgment arising from Civil Suit No. 578 of 2019
Decision
Ex parte judgment upheld; execution 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 High Court dismissed an application to set aside an ex parte judgment in a land dispute. The court held that substituted service by newspaper advertisement was properly effected within the prescribed period and that the summons had not expired at the time of publication. The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for non-appearance, as service was duly effected and evidence suggested prior knowledge of the proceedings. The absence of a draft written statement of defence and the trial court's earlier finding of fraud against the applicant further undermined the application. The ex parte judgment remained valid and enforceable.

Outcome

Ex parte judgment upheld; execution to proceed

Facts

The applicant sought to set aside an ex parte judgment entered on 16 August 2024 in Civil Suit No. 578 of 2019, claiming he was never served and only discovered the suit in March 2025. The underlying suit concerned land fraud allegations where the trial court found the applicant had fraudulently registered subdivided plots in his own name without the first respondent's consent. After unsuccessful attempts at personal service, the court ordered substituted service, and summons were advertised in the Saturday Monitor on 21 November 2020. The respondents contended that the applicant had actual knowledge of the proceedings through telephone contact and WhatsApp messages, and that he deliberately chose not to participate. The applicant maintained he was never served and had a valid defence based on alleged authorised dealings with both respondents.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant was effectively and duly served with court process vide Civil Suit No. 578 of 2019.
  2. Whether the Applicant has sufficient cause to set aside the ex parte/default judgment and execution vide Civil Suit No. 578 of 2019.
  3. Whether the Applicant has/had a plausible defence to Civil Suit No. 578 of 2019.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • The ex parte/default judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 578 of 2019 remains valid and enforceable.
  • The 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

Service of Process — Substituted Service — Validity of Newspaper Advertisement
Where personal service proves impracticable, substituted service by advertisement in a newspaper of wide circulation is valid if effected in accordance with Order 5 rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules and within the prescribed period under Order 5 rule 1(2) and section 34(1) of the Interpretation Act.
Service of Process — Expiry of Summons — Computation of Time
Summons published by way of substituted service within twenty-one days of issuance, as prescribed by Order 5 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 34(1) of the Interpretation Act, have not expired at the time of publication.
Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment — Sufficient Cause — Burden of Proof
Under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a party seeking to set aside an ex parte judgment must demonstrate sufficient cause for failure to appear, which requires both an explanation for non-appearance and the existence of a bona fide defence. Where service has been duly effected, the burden shifts to the applicant to demonstrate other sufficient cause.
Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment — Plausible Defence — Draft Defence Required
The existence of a plausible defence alone is not sufficient to warrant setting aside an ex parte judgment where no sufficient cause has been shown for failure to appear. Where no draft written statement of defence is attached to the application, the applicant's assertions remain without particulars and untested on the record.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (10)

  • Adiit Mark Raymond v Aisha Daisy Buruku (HCMA No. 1533 of 2025)
  • Commissioner Land Registration v Kutesa (HCMA No. 130 of 2011)
  • Kisuule and Another v Kyeyune and Another (HCMA No. 6 of 2024)
  • Valery Alia v Alionzi John (HCCS No. 157 of 2010)
  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Issa Bukenya (SCCA No. 18 of 1991)
  • Rosette Kizito v Administrator General and Others (SCCA No. 9 of 1986)
  • Wakabala & Co. Advocates v Banyenzaki (HCMA No. 802 of 2019)
  • Registered Trustees of the Archdiocese of Dar es Salaam v Bunju Village Government and Others (Civil Appeal No. 147 of 2006)
  • Visare Uganda Limited v Muwema & Company Advocates and Solicitors (Misc. Application No. 826 of 2022; Misc. Application No. 827 of 2023)
  • Mulondo Kenneth v Fred Kirenga (HCMA 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_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._0889_of_2025)_[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.