Threeways Shipping (K) Limited v Transpares Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1499 of 2025)
Observed later treatment
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
Application to set aside a six-year-old default judgment dismissed. The court held that service on the applicant's directors in Uganda, who directed the process server to their lawyer, constituted effective service under section 254 of the Companies Act. The applicant's six-year delay in challenging the judgment, despite participating in subsequent proceedings to lift the corporate veil, demonstrated inordinate delay and laxity. The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause or triable issues warranting the setting aside of the default judgment.
Outcome
Application to set aside default judgment dismissed with costs to the respondent
Facts
The respondent supplied diesel fuel and weighbridge services to the applicant between 2015 and 2016. When the applicant failed to pay USD 126,000, the respondent filed Civil Suit No. 279/2019 in April 2019. A default judgment was entered on 27 August 2019. The respondent later filed Miscellaneous Application No. 837/2023 to lift the corporate veil, which was granted on 17 April 2024, permitting execution against the applicant's directors and parent company. The applicant filed this application in 2025, six years after the default judgment, seeking to set it aside on grounds of ineffective service and lack of jurisdiction, claiming it was a Kenyan company that should have been served in Kenya.
Issues
- Whether the application raises good or sufficient cause to warrant the setting aside of the default judgment and decree entered in Civil Suit No. 279/2019?
- Whether the applicant should be granted unconditional leave to defend the suit?
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
Cases cited (9)
- Kobi Samson v Barasi Investments Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 2986 of 2023)
- Geoffrey Gatete v William Kyobe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
- Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Issa Bukenya (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1991)
- Florence Nabatanzi v Naome Binsobedde (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 6 of 1987)
- Hikima Kyamanywa v Sajjabi Chris (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2006)
- Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
- Gahire David v Uwayezu Immaculate (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2008)
- Rossette Kizito v Administrator General and Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 9 of 1986)
- AMRA Leasing Ltd vs DAC Aviation (EA) Ltd & Others [2022] EWHC 1718 (Comm)
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.