Wakilii

Sembatya Ibrahim v Daniel Walugembe (Miscellaneous Application No. 2038 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 158 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside default/interlocutory judgment arising from Civil Suit No. 0713 of 2024
Decision
Application to set aside default judgment dismissed with costs

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

Held that the application to set aside default judgment fails where the applicant was effectively served with summons both physically at his place of work through an agent and electronically via WhatsApp using his known contact number provided in the parties' agreement. The applicant's admission that he knew of the suit and instructed lawyers to file a defence confirms effective service. Service through WhatsApp is recognised as valid under Legal Notice No. 6 of 2019. The ground of non-service lacks merit.

Outcome

Application to set aside default judgment dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicant brought an application to set aside a default/interlocutory judgment entered in Civil Suit No. 0713 of 2024, alleging he was never served with court process. He claimed that the person named Sabrina who allegedly received service at his workplace was unknown to him, and that the WhatsApp number used for electronic service did not belong to him. However, the applicant admitted in his affidavit that around 31st July 2024, he returned to his office, was informed of an envelope from the respondent, learned he had been sued, and immediately engaged lawyers to file a defence. The respondent's evidence showed service was effected through Sabrina at the applicant's place of work and electronically via WhatsApp number 0700848600, which was the same number the applicant provided in the agreement between the parties that gave rise to the dispute.

Issues

  1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to warrant the setting aside of the default/interlocutory judgment entered by this Honorable Court in Civil Suit No. 0713 of 2024.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Distinction Between Order 9 Rule 12 and Order 9 Rule 27
Applications to set aside judgment under Order 9 Rule 12 are different from those under Order 9 Rule 27. Order 9 Rule 12 is broader in application, allowing setting aside where judgment has been passed pursuant to any preceding rule or Order 50, upon terms as may be just. Order 9 Rule 27 applies only to ex parte decrees and permits setting aside on grounds of improper service or sufficient cause preventing appearance.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Electronic Service via WhatsApp
Service of court process through WhatsApp messenger application is recognised as effective service under Rule 7(2)(c) of the Constitution (Integration of ICT into the Adjudication Processes for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, Legal Notice No. 6 of 2019, which requires parties to use technology for information exchange and to serve documents electronically through instant messaging applications and other widely used electronic communications services.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Purpose and Effect of Service
The desired and intended result of serving summons on a defendant is to make the defendant aware of the suit so that he has the opportunity to respond by defending or admitting liability. Where the intended result is achieved and the defendant becomes aware of the suit and instructs lawyers to file a defence, the service has brought about its desired effect, regardless of the mode of service.
Evidence — Admissions — Effect of Party's Own Statement
Where an applicant seeking to set aside default judgment admits in his affidavit that he learned of the suit, received an envelope at his office, and immediately engaged lawyers to file a defence, this constitutes an admission under Section 16 of the Evidence Act that service brought about its intended effect, undermining the ground of non-service.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Burden of Proof in Electronic Service
Where an addressee denies receipt of court summons served electronically, the onus is on the sender to prove that the summons was indeed delivered. Proof may consist of evidence that the electronic contact details used were those provided by the defendant himself in agreements between the parties.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (13)

  • National Resistance Movement v Kampala Modernity and Printers Ltd (HCMA No. 6 of 2016)
  • Nicolas Rousos v Gulam Hussein Virani and Another (SCCA No. 9 of 1993)
  • Mbogo v Shah (1968) EA 93
  • Patel v E.A Cargo Handling Services (1974) EA 76
  • Saggu v Road Master Cycles (U) Ltd (2022) 1 EA 258
  • Geoffrey Gatete and Angela Maria Nakigonya v William Kyobe (SCCA No. 7 of 2005)
  • Abela and others v Baadarani [2013] UKSC 44
  • Gray v Hurley [2019] EWHC 1636 (QB)
  • Male H. Mabirizi v Attorney General (H.C. Misc. Application No. 918 of 2021)
  • Musumba Isaac Isanga v Quid Financials Ltd (H.C. Misc. Application No. 139 of 2020)
  • Nyanzi Fred Sentamu v The Electoral Commission and 2 others (C.A. Misc. Application No. 10 of 2021)
  • Peace Barigye v Rosemary Kizza Omamteker (H.C. Misc. Application No. 2075 of 2022)
  • National Enterprises Corporation v Mukisa Foods Limited (CACA No. 42 of 1997)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sembatya Ibrahim v Daniel Walugembe (Miscellaneous Application No. 2038 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 158 (28 March 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.