Wakilii

Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited v M3vents Consults (Miscellaneous Application No. 527 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 418 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside default judgment arising from summary procedure suit
Decision
Default judgment set aside; application for leave to appear and defend reinstated for hearing on 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 set aside a default judgment entered against the applicant in a summary suit. The court held that the applicant's leave to appear and defend had been filed within the prescribed 10-day period when the statutory exclusion period between 24 December and 15 January was properly applied. The miscomputation of time by the lower court constituted good cause under Order 36 Rule 11 to set aside the default judgment and reinstate the application for leave to defend.

Outcome

Default judgment set aside; application for leave to appear and defend reinstated for hearing on merits

Facts

The respondent brought a summary suit against the applicant claiming USD 30,000. The applicant was served with summons on 11 January 2023. The applicant filed an application for leave to appear and defend on 23 January 2023. A default judgment was subsequently entered against the applicant. The applicant then brought this application to set aside the default judgment, arguing that its leave application had been filed within time when the statutory exclusion period between 24 December and 15 January was properly accounted for in the computation. The respondent was served but did not enter appearance or file any reply.

Issues

  1. Whether this application discloses sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of reliefs sought for.
  2. What are the available remedies?

Orders

  • The Default Judgment entered in H.C.C.S No.0029 of 2023 be set aside.
  • The application for leave to appear and defend shall be heard on its merits.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Computation of Time — Statutory Exclusion Period — Order 51 Rule 4
Under Order 51 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the period between 24 December in any year and 15 January in the following year (both days inclusive) shall not be reckoned in the computation of time appointed or allowed for filing any pleading or doing any other act, except for applications for interim injunctions or urgent business.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Leave to Appear and Defend — Time Limits
Under Order 36 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, a defendant served with summons in a summary suit must apply for and obtain leave from court to appear and defend within ten days from service of the summons. Where the statutory exclusion period under Order 51 Rule 4 applies, those excluded days are not counted in computing the ten-day period.
Civil Procedure — Default Judgment — Setting Aside — Good Cause
Under Order 36 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a court may set aside a default judgment if satisfied that service was not effective or for any other good cause. Miscomputation of time by the court in determining whether an application was filed within the prescribed period constitutes good cause warranting the setting aside of a default judgment.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Unchallenged Affidavit Evidence
Where an applicant supports an application by affidavit and the respondent does not reply by affidavit or otherwise, and the supporting evidence is credible in itself, the facts stand as unchallenged and may be accepted by the court.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (5)

  • Serefaco Consultants Ltd v Euro Consult BV & Anor (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2007)
  • H.G Gandesha and Kampala Estates Ltd v G.J Lutaya (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1989)
  • Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1993)
  • Hon. Maj. Gen.(Rtd) Kahinda Otafire v The New Vision Printing and Publishing Corporation & Two Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 505 of 2019)
  • Noble Builders (U) Ltd & Anor v Jabal Singh Sandhu (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2002)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited v M3vents Consults (Miscellaneous Application No. 527 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 418 (11 January 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.