Wakilii

Siren Security Group Ltd v Omongole Richard and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 2513 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 35 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside default judgment and decree arising from Civil Suit No. 602 of 2024
Decision
Default judgment set aside; matter remitted for hearing on the merits with leave to file defence out of time

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 set aside a default judgment and decree entered against a corporate defendant where service of process was disputed. The court found that service had not been properly effected on the company's authorised officers as required by Order 29 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, despite the respondent's claim of electronic service via WhatsApp. The applicant was granted leave to file a defence out of time and all execution proceedings arising from the default judgment were set aside.

Outcome

Default judgment set aside; matter remitted for hearing on the merits with leave to file defence out of time

Facts

The applicant company received a hearing notice in October 2025 for execution proceedings arising from a default judgment in Civil Suit No. 602 of 2024. The applicant claimed it had never been served with the original suit summons. The respondents contended that service had been effected electronically via WhatsApp on 3rd July 2024 and that the applicant's managing director had been served in person at Makindye Chief Magistrate's Court in a criminal matter. The applicant denied receiving service, disputed the WhatsApp numbers cited, and stated that no criminal case existed against the company at Makindye. The applicant further contended that the affidavit of service contained falsehoods, as the criminal case referenced was actually at Nsangi Chief Magistrate's Court and involved the company's employees, not the company itself.

Issues

  1. Whether this application raises sufficient grounds that warrant setting aside the default judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 602 of 2024 dated 9th January, 2025.
  2. Whether the execution proceedings vide Miscellaneous Application No. 183 of 2025 should be stayed pending the hearing and disposal of this application.
  3. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to file its written statement of defence in Civil Suit No. 602 of 2024 out of time.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The judgment and decree arising from Civil Suit No. 602 of 2024 dated 9th January, 2025, is hereby set aside.
  • The Applicant is granted leave to file its written statement of defence in Civil Suit No. 602 of 2024 out of time.
  • The Applicant shall file and serve its written statement of defence within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Ruling.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Service on Corporate Bodies — Requirements under Order 29 rule 2
Service of process on a corporate body must be effected on the secretary, director, or other principal officer of the corporation, or by leaving it or sending it by post addressed to the corporation at the registered office or place where the corporation carries on business, in accordance with Order 29 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgments — Grounds under Order 9 rule 27
Under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a court shall set aside an ex parte decree if satisfied that the summons was not duly served or that the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing.
Civil Procedure — Electronic Service — Burden of Proof of Effective Service
Where a party claims to have effected service electronically via WhatsApp or other electronic means, and the defendant disputes receiving such service and denies ownership of the contact details used, the burden lies on the serving party to establish that service was properly effected on an authorised recipient.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (3)

  • Smsone Limited v Zeenode Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 449 of 2023)
  • Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 919 of 2021)
  • Male H Mabirizi K Kiwanuka v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 918 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Siren Security Group Ltd v Omongole Richard and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 2513 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 35 (11 February 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.