Wakilii

Uganda Baati Ltd. v Mubangizi Julius (Misc Application No. 311 of 2009)

High Court · [2009] UGHC 262 · 2009 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex-parte order and for extension of time to file defence in main civil suit
Decision
Ex-parte order set aside; defendant granted leave to defend the main suit on the merits

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 allowed the application and set aside the ex-parte order. The court held that Order 9 rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules empowers a court to set aside its own interlocutory orders where justice requires. The eight-day delay in filing the defence was not attributable to intentional dilatory conduct by the defendant and did not warrant denial of a hearing on the merits. Refusing to set aside the order would give undue regard to technicalities in violation of Article 126(2)(e) and would deprive the defendant of the right to a fair hearing under Article 28(1) of the Constitution.

Outcome

Ex-parte order set aside; defendant granted leave to defend the main suit on the merits

Facts

Uganda Baati Ltd was the defendant in Civil Suit No. 179/2007 (later renumbered as Civil Suit No. 37/2008) filed by Mubangizi Julius. On 3 April 2007, the defendant's advocates received instructions to defend the suit and file a written statement of defence. The defence was filed on 26 April 2007, eight days after the 15-day statutory period. On 10 June 2009, the plaintiff raised a preliminary objection that the defence had been filed late without leave of court under Order 51 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court upheld the objection and ordered the matter to proceed ex-parte. The defendant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 215 of 2009 to set aside the order, but withdrew it by consent and paid costs. The defendant then filed the present application (Miscellaneous Application No. 311 of 2009) seeking to set aside the ex-parte order and for leave to defend the suit. The defendant deponed that the eight-day delay was inadvertent and that there was a full defence to the suit on the merits.

Issues

  1. Whether the court had jurisdiction to set aside its own ex-parte order made on 10 June 2009.
  2. Whether the application was barred by res judicata following the withdrawal of Miscellaneous Application No. 215 of 2009.
  3. Whether the delay of eight days in filing the written statement of defence warranted refusal of leave to defend the suit.
  4. Whether Order 9 rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules applied to set aside an order granting ex-parte hearing.

Orders

  • The order of 10 June 2009 authorising ex-parte hearing is set aside.
  • The defendant is granted leave to appear and defend the suit.
  • The application to extend time is allowed.
  • Costs of the application to the applicant.
  • Matter set for hearing on 22 February 2010 at 10:00 a.m.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex-Parte Orders — Jurisdiction of Court under Order 9 rule 12
Order 9 rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules empowers a court to set aside or vary a judgment passed under any of the preceding rules of Order 9, including orders granting ex-parte hearing. The term 'judgment' in section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act includes orders, and the court which made an interlocutory order has jurisdiction to set it aside where the interests of justice so require.
Civil Procedure — Time for Filing Defence — Extension of Time — Inadvertent Delay
Where a defendant files a written statement of defence eight days late due to inadvertent error by counsel, and there is no evidence of intentional dilatory conduct, the court may exercise its discretion to grant leave to defend the suit on the merits rather than permit ex-parte hearing.
Constitutional Law — Fair Hearing — Substantive Justice — Article 126(2)(e) and Article 28(1)
Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution requires courts to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities. Refusing to set aside an ex-parte order where the defendant filed a defence only eight days late would amount to sacrificing justice at the altar of a technicality and would violate the defendant's constitutional right to a fair hearing under Article 28(1).
Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Interlocutory Orders
The doctrine of res judicata under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act does not apply to interlocutory orders made in the course of ongoing litigation. An order granting ex-parte hearing is interlocutory in nature because the substantive issues in the suit have not been finally determined. A subsequent application to set aside such an order is not barred by res judicata.
Civil Procedure — Interpretation of 'Court' and 'Judgment' — Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act
For purposes of the Civil Procedure Act, 'judgment' means the statement given by a judge of the grounds of a decree or order, and includes interlocutory orders. The term 'court' means any court exercising jurisdiction, not a particular individual judge, and one court exercising the same jurisdiction may set aside the order of another.

Legislation cited (14)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Baati Ltd. v Mubangizi Julius (Misc Application No. 311 of 2009) [2009] UGHC 262 (20 November 2009)
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.