Wakilii

Todaf Engineering & Civil Works Ltd v Jamboleo Engineering Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2414 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 410 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside exparte judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 0343 of 2021
Decision
Application to set aside exparte judgment dismissed for failure to demonstrate sufficient cause and for abuse of court process

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

An application to set aside an exparte judgment must demonstrate sufficient cause for non-appearance. Counsel's travel abroad on a hearing date scheduled three months earlier does not constitute sufficient cause where no colleague held brief and the litigant exhibited no diligence in monitoring the case. Deliberate avoidance of court processes followed by an application to set aside judgment constitutes abuse of court process. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application to set aside exparte judgment dismissed for failure to demonstrate sufficient cause and for abuse of court process

Facts

The respondent sued the applicant in Civil Suit No. 0343 of 2021 for UGX 669,577,928 arising from breach of a hire agreement for excavators. The applicant filed a defence. The matter proceeded through summons for directions frustrated by the defendant's perpetual absence. When the suit came before the trial judge on 19 October 2022, defendant and counsel were absent despite service. The matter was adjourned to 12 December 2022 with a warning that it would proceed in their absence if they failed to appear. On 12 December 2022 court did not sit due to a special Supreme Court sitting; both counsels present agreed to adjourn to 6 March 2023. On 6 March 2023 defendant and counsel again did not appear. The court proceeded exparte. Over a year later, on 11 October 2023, the applicant applied to set aside the exparte judgment, claiming counsel was in Dubai on the hearing date and the ECCMIS system prevented monitoring of the case.

Issues

  1. Whether the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 0343 of 2021 can be set aside.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Exparte Judgments — Sufficient Cause — Counsel's Travel Abroad
An advocate's travel abroad on a hearing date scheduled three months in advance does not constitute sufficient cause for non-appearance under Order 9 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules where the advocate could have sent a colleague to hold brief or the party could have sent a representative.
Civil Procedure — Litigant's Duty — Diligence in Monitoring Case Progress
A litigant has a duty to exercise vigilance and diligence in monitoring the progress of their case and cannot rely solely on their advocate to follow up on court proceedings. Failure to demonstrate such diligence amounts to dilatory conduct and negates a claim of sufficient cause.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Process — Deliberate Non-Appearance Followed by Set-Aside Application
Deliberate and repeated non-compliance with court schedules and directions, followed by an application to set aside an exparte judgment more than a year after the order, constitutes abuse of court process intended to subvert justice and buy time. Such conduct will not be condoned.
Civil Procedure — Advocate's Default — Party's Privy to Default
While a litigant ordinarily should not bear the consequences of their advocate's default, this protection does not apply where the litigant is privy to the default or where the default results from the litigant's failure to give due instructions or to exercise diligence in monitoring their case.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (13)

  • Mbabazi Sylvia v Kagoya P. Dinah (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2020)
  • Zam Nalumansi & Anor v Sulaiman Lule (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1992)
  • Mary Kyomulabi v Ahmed Zirondemu (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 041 of 1979)
  • Andrew Bamanya v Sham Sherali Zaver (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2001)
  • Denis Ahairwe v Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1851 of 2023)
  • Ongam Vs Owota (2009) 1 EA 357
  • Rosette Kizito v Administrator General and Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 9 of 1986)
  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulam Hussein Habib Virani & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • Shabin Din v. Ram Parkash Anand (1955) 22 EACA 48
  • Patel v. Star Mineral Water and Ice Factory (1961) E.A. 454
  • Mitha v. Ladak (1960) E.A. 1054
  • Capt. Philip Ongom v Catherine Nyero Owota (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2001)
  • Kananura Andrew Kansiime v Richard Henry Kaijuka (Supreme Court Civil Reference No. 15 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Todaf Engineering & Civil Works Ltd v Jamboleo Engineering Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2414 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 410 (29 August 2024)
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.