Wakilii

Tusubira Waisswa Joseph and Another v Lutaka Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2046 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 21 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte judgment arising from Civil Suit No. 1299 of 2024
Decision
Ex parte judgment set aside; matter remitted for inter partes hearing

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 held that negligence of former counsel constitutes sufficient cause under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules to set aside an ex parte judgment where the applicants instructed advocates who filed a defence but subsequently failed to appear in court, and the applicants filed the application without delay upon discovering the ex parte proceedings. The court rejected preliminary objections that the affidavit was defective for being deponed by one applicant only and that failure to attach the ex parte order rendered the application incompetent.

Outcome

Ex parte judgment set aside; matter remitted for inter partes hearing

Facts

On 28 October 2024, the Respondent instituted Civil Suit No. 1299 of 2024 against the Applicants seeking recovery of UGX 144,290,000 jointly and UGX 30,710,000 from the 1st Applicant. The Applicants instructed M/s Nyambane & Co. Advocates who filed a defence. The advocates appeared at summons for directions on 15 January 2025 and subsequent mentions but failed to comply with court directives and file trial documents. On 9 July 2025, when the Defendants and their Counsel did not appear, the court granted the Plaintiff's prayer to proceed ex parte under Order 9 rule 20(1)(a). Judgment was delivered ex parte on 16 September 2025. On 5 September 2025, the 1st Applicant discovered the matter had been scheduled for judgment while at court on a separate matter. He attempted to contact his previous counsel without success and instructed new advocates, M/s Meritas Advocates, who filed this application to set aside the ex parte judgment.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants have sufficient cause to warrant setting aside the ex parte judgment entered in Civil Suit No. 1299 of 2024?
  2. Whether the affidavit in support of the application is defective for being deponed by only one Applicant without written authorization from the other?
  3. Whether the application is incompetent for failure to attach the ex parte judgment or order?

Orders

  • The ex parte judgment/decree entered against the Applicants in Civil Suit No. 1299 of 2024 is hereby set aside.
  • Civil Suit No. 1299 of 2024 is fixed for hearing on 16th March, 2026 at 9:00am.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgments — Sufficient Cause — Negligence of Counsel
Negligence of an advocate who was duly instructed and filed a defence but subsequently failed to appear in court constitutes sufficient cause under Order 9 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules to set aside an ex parte judgment, where the client acted without delay upon discovering the ex parte proceedings and there is no evidence that the client contributed to the advocate's failure to appear.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Joint Applicants — Authorization Requirements
Order 1 rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules requiring written authorization applies only where one party appears, pleads, or acts on behalf of another; it does not require written authorization where one of multiple applicants depones to an affidavit setting out facts within his own knowledge without purporting to set out facts on behalf of or appear for the other applicant.
Civil Procedure — Applications — Annexures — Failure to Attach Court Orders
Failure to attach an ex parte judgment or order to an application to set aside that judgment is not fatal where the judgment is identified by the parties, is not in dispute, and is on the record of the same court hearing the application; such failure is curable under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution which provides that substantive justice shall be administered without undue regard to technicalities.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (6)

  • Walujjo Uganda (Ltd) and 2 Others v Tropical Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 929 of 2015)
  • Nampala Betty and 2 Others v Kimuli Stephen and 7 Others (HCMA No. 92 of 2022)
  • Gideon Mosa Onchwati Vs Kenya Oil Co. Ltd and Another [2017] eKLR
  • Parimal Vs Veena Alias Bhati [2011] 3 SCC 545
  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulam Hussein Habib and Another (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • Taali David and 2 Others v Omonuk Abraham & Another (Revision Application No. 16 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tusubira Waisswa Joseph and Another v Lutaka Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2046 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 21 (28 January 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.