Wakilii

Strogen Limited and Others v Vehicle and Equipment Leasing Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 348 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 175 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte judgment in Civil Suit No. 194 of 2017
Decision
Application to set aside ex parte judgment dismissed; original judgment in Civil Suit No. 194 of 2017 stands

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 the application to set aside an ex parte judgment. The applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for their non-attendance at trial, having exhibited dilatory conduct by never entering personal appearance, failing to comply with court directives, and not following up on their case despite filing a defence. The applicants were aware of the judgment from October 2024 but only filed the application eleven months after judgment was delivered. Counsel's negligence does not excuse a litigant's own failure to monitor their case.

Outcome

Application to set aside ex parte judgment dismissed; original judgment in Civil Suit No. 194 of 2017 stands

Facts

The applicants sought to set aside an ex parte judgment entered against them in Civil Suit No. 194 of 2017 on 19 April 2024. The suit was instituted in March 2017 and the applicants filed their defence in April 2017. Between 2021 and 2023, the matter came up for hearing multiple times. The applicants' counsel repeatedly failed to file witness statements and trial bundles, claiming he could not locate his clients. On 20 September 2022 and 5 December 2022, counsel informed the court he had lost contact with the applicants. On 17 May 2023, neither the applicants nor their counsel appeared, and the court proceeded ex parte. The applicants claimed they only learned of the judgment when served with a notice to show cause on 5 February 2025. However, evidence showed the third applicant was notified of the judgment via WhatsApp on 21 October 2024 and met with the respondent's counsel on 23 October 2024 to discuss settlement. The applicants filed the application eleven months after judgment was delivered.

Issues

  1. Whether there is sufficient cause to set aside the Judgment in Civil Suit No. 194 of 2017?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgments — Sufficient Cause — Litigant's Duty to Monitor Case
A litigant seeking to set aside an ex parte judgment must demonstrate sufficient cause relating to inability or failure to take a particular step in time. Where a litigant files a defence but never enters personal appearance, fails to comply with court directives, and does not follow up on their case, they exhibit dilatory conduct that cannot be excused by counsel's negligence.
Civil Procedure — Mistake of Counsel — Litigant's Vigilance — Duty to Follow Up
While mistakes of counsel may amount to sufficient cause to set aside a judgment, a litigant who is guilty of dilatory conduct cannot use the principle as a shield. It is the litigant's duty to follow up their case and inquire from their lawyer the status of the same. A litigant cannot claim ignorance of proceedings when they failed to monitor their case over several years.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Judgments — Delay — Knowledge of Judgment
Where an applicant was notified of a judgment in October 2024 but only filed an application to set it aside in February 2025, eleven months after the judgment was delivered, and where the applicant met with opposing counsel to discuss settlement shortly after being notified, the applicant cannot credibly claim ignorance of the judgment until a later date.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (14)

  • Col. (Rtd) Dr. Kizza Besigye v Yoweri Kaguta Museveni & Another (Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Home Connect Properties (U) Ltd v Kassim Buyondo & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 258 of 2022)
  • Eric Tibebaga v Fr. Narsensio Begumisa & Others (Civil Application No. 18 of 2002)
  • Ndejje University v E-Live International Services Ltd (HCMA No. 1999 of 2024)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Limited [1969] EA 696
  • Florence Nabatanzi v Naome Binsobedde (SC Civil Application No. 06 of 1987)
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v ZTE Corporation (SCCA No. 3 of 2017)
  • M/s Tad Beer Trading Center (U) Ltd v Caroline Blackburn Amero (Miscellaneous Application No. 571 of 2024)
  • Hakan Turkmen & Another v Petua Kateeba (HCMA No. 619 of 2024)
  • Kananura Andrew Kansiime v Richard Henry Kaijuka (SC Civil Reference No. 15 of 2016)
  • Rossete Kizito v Administrator General & Others (SCCA No. 9 of 1986)
  • Sipiriya Kyarulesire v Justine Bakachulike Bagambe (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1995)
  • Capt. Philip Ongom v Catherine Nyero Owota (SCCA No. 14 of 2001)
  • Sipiriya Kyarulesire v Justine Bakanchulika Bagambe (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1995)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Strogen Limited and Others v Vehicle and Equipment Leasing Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 348 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 175 (17 June 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.