Wakilii

Shapira & Another v Uganda Communications Commission (Miscellaneous Application 309 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 46 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte judgment in civil suit arising from unpaid licence fees claim
Decision
Judgment and decree set aside; applicants permitted to file written statement of defence

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 substituted service by newspaper publication was ineffective for parties outside Uganda's jurisdiction. Non-resident directors appointed as insolvency receivers by an Israeli court after the parent company entered receivership could not be held liable for debts incurred before their appointment when they had no direct involvement in the Ugandan subsidiary's day-to-day management. The judgment and decree were set aside as the applicants were not properly served and presented a plausible defence denying responsibility for the company's affairs in Uganda.

Outcome

Judgment and decree set aside; applicants permitted to file written statement of defence

Facts

The applicants, Israeli residents, were appointed by the Bankruptcy Court of Tel-Aviv as receivers of Foris Telecom Ltd (parent company) in September 2014 following insolvency proceedings. They had no prior involvement with the company. The Ugandan subsidiary, Foris Telecom (U) Limited, was managed day-to-day by Uganda-based directors Yaron Farchi and Dr. Muballe Boysier. The Uganda Communications Commission filed Civil Suit No. 273 of 2019 seeking unpaid licence fees of UGX 772,889,455 for 2012-2013 and an order lifting the corporate veil to hold the applicants personally liable. Summons were served by substituted service through a New Vision newspaper advertisement on 1 November 2019. The applicants, not being in Uganda, did not see the notice. Judgment was entered against them ex parte. The parent company was liquidated in July 2016 and bankruptcy proceedings ended in July 2019. The applicants discovered the judgment months later and applied to set it aside.

Issues

  1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to merit the setting aside of the judgment in Civil Suit No. 273 of 2019 and allow the applicant to file its written statement of defence.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 273 of 2019 against the two applicants is set aside.
  • Application allowed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Substituted Service — Effectiveness for Parties Outside Jurisdiction
Substituted service by newspaper publication is not effective for parties outside the jurisdiction of the court; it is intended for persons deemed to be within the jurisdiction who cannot be reached through ordinary modes of service.
Company Law — Directors' Liability — Lifting the Corporate Veil — Receivers Appointed After Debts Incurred
Directors appointed as insolvency receivers by a foreign bankruptcy court after debts were incurred, who had no prior connection to the company and no direct involvement in the day-to-day management of a subsidiary, cannot be held personally liable for debts incurred before their appointment.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgments — Sufficient Cause — Defective Service and Plausible Defence
A court may set aside an ex parte judgment under Order 9 rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules where the applicant shows ineffective service and presents a plausible defence that denies involvement in the matters giving rise to the claim.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (3)

  • Gatete v Kyobe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2007)
  • Sessanga v Greenland Bank (In Liquidation) (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 406 of 2010)
  • Kabagenyi v Fina Bank (U) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 70 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Shapira & Another v Uganda Communications Commission (Miscellaneous Application 309 of 2023) [2025] UGHCCD 46 (26 February 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.