Wakilii

Sserunjogi v Ssekyanzi (Miscellaneous Cause 28 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 289 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to proceed ex-parte in miscellaneous cause
Decision
Applicant granted leave to proceed ex-parte in the underlying miscellaneous cause

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 granted leave to the applicant to proceed ex-parte in Miscellaneous Cause No. 028 of 2024. The court held that where a respondent has been duly served with court processes and persistently fails to comply with court directives or appear without justifiable cause, the court may exercise its discretion under Order 9 Rule 20(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules to allow ex-parte proceedings. The respondent's repeated non-compliance, failure to instruct an advocate despite court orders, and unexplained absence constituted deliberate frustration of proceedings justifying the grant of ex-parte leave.

Outcome

Applicant granted leave to proceed ex-parte in the underlying miscellaneous cause

Facts

The Applicant instituted Miscellaneous Cause No. 028 of 2024 on 15 August 2024. The Respondent was served with the application on 17 October 2024 through his lawyer. The matter was scheduled for hearing on 16 January 2025, but was adjourned due to court census activities. On 18 March 2025, the Respondent appeared and filed an affidavit in reply out of time. The court advised him to instruct an advocate and comply with legal requirements by 3 April 2025, adjourning the matter to 17 April 2025. On 17 April 2025, the Respondent failed to appear and had not instructed an advocate as ordered. The Applicant's counsel then sought leave to proceed ex-parte.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to proceed ex-parte with the hearing of Miscellaneous Cause No. 028 of 2024.

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the Applicant to proceed ex-parte in the hearing of Miscellaneous Cause No. 028 of 2024.
  • The costs of this application shall be borne by the Respondent, Mr. Ssekyanzi Adrian.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Ex-Parte Proceedings — Conditions for Grant of Leave
Under Order 9 Rule 20(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules, a court may grant leave to proceed ex-parte where the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not, provided the court is satisfied that the summons or notice of hearing was duly served on the defendant.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Electronic Service via WhatsApp
Service of court documents through WhatsApp messenger constitutes effective service in line with modern judicial practices and the Constitution (Integration of ICT into the Adjudication Processes for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2019.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Service on Advocate
Service on a party's advocate constitutes constructive notice to the party under Order 5 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as advocates are presumed to act as conduits for communication between the court and their clients.
Civil Procedure — Ex-Parte Proceedings — Persistent Non-Compliance as Ground
Where a party persistently fails to comply with court orders or appear without justifiable cause despite being afforded multiple opportunities, the court is justified in proceeding ex-parte to avoid undue delay and prejudice to the diligent party and to uphold the integrity of judicial processes.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (5)

  • Nicholas Roussos v Ghulam Hussein Habib Virani (Supreme Court Appeal [1993] UGSC 19)
  • Akuta Alfonse & 3 Others v Lakony David Livingstone (Civil Appeal No. 0026 of 2015)
  • Attorney-General of Rivers state v Gregory Obi Ude and 12 others(1993)2 NWLR (Pt. 278) 638; (1193) 2 SCNJ 47
  • Male H. Mabirizi v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 918 of 2021)
  • Musumba Isaac Isanga v Quid Financials Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 139 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sserunjogi v Ssekyanzi (Miscellaneous Cause 28 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 289 (5 May 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.