Wakilii

Ssekyanzi Elvis Wavamunno v Maru Capital Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 387 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 385 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside an order permitting the respondent to proceed ex parte in the main civil suit
Decision
Application to set aside the ex parte order dismissed with costs; the ex parte order stands

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 dismissed an application to set aside an order allowing the respondent to proceed ex parte. It held that Order 9 rule 27 was inapplicable because no ex parte decree had yet been passed, but it retained power under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and section 37 of the Judicature Act. On the merits, the applicant relied on the mistake of former counsel, but the court found this claim undermined by record evidence showing continued communication with those advocates. It held that the mistake-of-counsel principle is not a magic wand, that a litigant must show diligence, and that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient cause.

Outcome

Application to set aside the ex parte order dismissed with costs; the ex parte order stands

Facts

The respondent sued the applicant in Civil Suit No. 986 of 2024 to recover UGX 164,857,460, interest and damages arising from two loans advanced at 6% per month. The applicant filed a defence through Emoru & Co. Advocates, contending that the interest was unconscionable, and a joint scheduling memorandum was filed. Thereafter neither the applicant nor his advocates attended court on successive dates, and the court granted orders for the matter to proceed ex parte, heard the respondent's witness, and fixed the matter for judgment. The applicant claimed he only learnt of the ex parte order from a lawyer friend, that his former lawyers were unreachable, and that their mistake or negligence should not be visited on him. The record showed, however, that the applicant's witness statement and trial bundle were drawn by his former advocates on 23 and 24 February 2026 and filed on 3 March 2026, before his new advocates filed a notice of change on 3 March 2026 and this application on 4 March 2026.

Issues

  1. Whether the application should be dismissed for want of a filed notice of change of advocates on the record.
  2. Whether the application raises sufficient grounds to set aside the order permitting the respondent to proceed ex parte in Civil Suit No. 986 of 2024.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is overruled.
  • This application fails and is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Order — Scope of Order 9 rule 27 CPR
Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies only where a decree has already been passed ex parte against a defendant; where the suit has merely been fixed for judgment and no judgment has been delivered, the rule is inapplicable, though the court retains power under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and section 37 of the Judicature Act to grant such remedies as the ends of justice require.
Civil Procedure — Mistake of Counsel — Limits of the Principle
The principle that a mistake, negligence or error of counsel should not be visited on the litigant is not a magic wand to be invoked in all circumstances; it does not avail a litigant who is privy to the default, who fails to give due instructions, or who fails to demonstrate diligence and an active interest in the prosecution of the case.
Civil Procedure — Sufficient Cause — Litigant's Duty of Diligence
Engaging an advocate does not amount to an abdication of a litigant's duty to diligently pursue their claim or defence; the litigant must consistently follow up on the progress of the suit, and a failure to do so is evidence of a lack of diligence weighing against a finding of sufficient cause.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (6)

  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Banco Arabe Espano v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • Essoa Nkoy and Others v Hamid Tall (Miscellaneous Application No. 2412 of 2025)
  • Captain Phillip Ongom v Catherine Nyero Owota (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2001)
  • Denis Ahairwe v Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1851 of 2023)
  • Femisa International Limited and Another v Equity Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 357 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssekyanzi Elvis Wavamunno v Maru Capital Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 387 of 2026) [2026] UGCommC 385 (10 August 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.