Wakilii

Senkubuge Shaban v Dr Rugazira Eugene and Another [2026] UGHC 728

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion for leave to file a written statement of defence out of time and validation of a defence already filed, arising from a pending civil suit
Decision
Application for leave to file a defence out of time dismissed with costs; defence filed by the applicant's new advocates struck off the record and the earlier defence retained

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 refused leave to file a defence out of time. An applicant under Order 8 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules must give a genuine, satisfactory explanation relating directly to the failure to take the step in time. The applicant's claim of non-service failed because he admitted receiving the hearing notice by WhatsApp and the pre-trial record showed his participation. His bare, uncorroborated denial that M/s Nalukoola Advocates & Solicitors held instructions could not displace evidence of sustained representation; an advocate holding out as instructed acts with ostensible authority which an acquiescing party cannot later disclaim. The earlier defence remained on record; the later defence was struck out and the application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for leave to file a defence out of time dismissed with costs; defence filed by the applicant's new advocates struck off the record and the earlier defence retained

Facts

The respondents sued the applicant, as first defendant, together with five others in Civil Suit No. 0030 of 2025 (formerly Civil Suit No. 554 of 2023), claiming damages for negligence, nuisance and breach of statutory duty following the collapse of a retaining wall at Seguku on 19 September 2023, which allegedly destroyed their residential house, caused personal injuries and losses of UGX 1,627,310,189.51. The applicant sought leave to file a written statement of defence out of time, asserting he was never personally served with summons and learnt of the suit only on 6 February 2026 through a hearing notice sent by WhatsApp, and that M/s Nalukoola Advocates & Solicitors had filed a defence on his behalf on 19 January 2024 without instructions. The respondents replied that the applicant had always known of the proceedings, had earlier attempted settlement through his advocates, and had been represented by that firm at summons for directions on 5 April 2024, scheduling on 8 May 2024 and mediation in October 2024, where counsel confirmed instructions; the firm also wrote seeking an adjournment on 23 February 2026.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant was precluded by sufficient cause from filing a written statement of defence within the prescribed time.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • The Written Statement of Defence filed by M/s Nalukoola Advocates & Solicitors on 19th January 2024 remains on the court record.
  • The Written Statement of Defence filed through M/s Ssingo Advocates is not validated and is struck off the record.
  • Costs of the application to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause for Late Filing of Defence
A defendant seeking leave under Order 8 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules to file a written statement of defence out of time bears the burden of placing before the court a candid, genuine and satisfactory explanation which relates directly to the inability or failure to take that particular step in time.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Purpose of Service and Effect of Undisputed Receipt
The purpose of service is to bring the proceedings to the notice of the party concerned, and where it is undisputed that court process, including a hearing notice transmitted electronically by WhatsApp, was in fact received, that purpose is achieved and a plea of non-service cannot amount to sufficient cause.
Civil Procedure — Representation — Ostensible Authority of Advocate on Record
An advocate who holds out as having instructions to represent a party acts with ostensible if not actual authority, and a party who allows or acquiesces in such representation, without any contemporaneous complaint to the firm or the Law Council, cannot later disclaim it by bare uncorroborated denial so as to defeat the legal consequences flowing from it.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Striking Out Defence Filed Without Leave
A written statement of defence filed out of time by newly instructed advocates has no validity where leave to file out of time is refused, and it will be struck off the record, leaving the earlier defence filed by the advocates then on record to stand.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Costs Follow the Event
Under section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act the general rule is that costs follow the event, so that an applicant who fails in an interlocutory application will ordinarily bear the respondent's costs.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (17)

  • Captain Phillip Ongom v Catherine Nyero Owoto (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2001)
  • M.B. Automobiles v Terreuzi [1970] EA 446
  • Mulega Christopher v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 200 of 2013)
  • Sam Mpozza Musika v Godfrey Kamuzinzi (Miscellaneous Application No. 147 of 2025)
  • National Enterprises Corporation v Mukisa Foods Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1997)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulamhussein Habib Virani (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • Tiberio Okeny v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2021)
  • Attorney General and Another v James Mark Kamoga (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Mubangizi Julius v Uganda Baati Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 311 of 2009)
  • Kasirye Byaruhanga & Co. Advocates v Uganda Development Bank (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2007)
  • Impresa Ing. Fortunato Federice v Irene Nabwire (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
  • Rossette Kizito v Administrator General (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1996)
  • Kayonza Growers Tea Factory Ltd v Uni Movers & Logistics Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 2404 of 2024)
  • Magezi and Another v Ruparelia (Civil Application No. 10 of 2002)
  • Caltex Oil v Kyobe (1989-90) HCB 141
  • Mugo & Others v Wanjiru & Anor [1970] 1 EA 481 at p. 483

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Senkubuge Shaban v Dr Rugazira Eugene and Another [2026] UGHC 728 (19 June 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.