Wakilii

Umeme Limited v Justice Choudry (Miscellaneous Application No. 736 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 116 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside default judgment and for extension of time to file application for leave to appear and defend summary suit
Decision
Default judgment set aside; applicant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the main suit

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

Held that a mistake or negligence of counsel in missing a filing deadline should not be visited upon the litigant unless the litigant is privy to the default. The court found that the applicant's lawyer's failure to file the application for leave to appear and defend due to attending a burial, though negligent, constituted sufficient cause under Order 36 Rule 11 CPR to set aside the default judgment. The court granted extension of time under Section 98 CPA and validated the application, finding that the applicant had disclosed plausible grounds of defence and bona fide triable issues warranting unconditional leave to appear and defend the main suit.

Outcome

Default judgment set aside; applicant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the main suit

Facts

The respondent instituted a summary suit against the applicant (Umeme Limited) claiming UGX 117,700,000 for unpaid license fees for installation of an electric pole on the respondent's residential premises. The applicant was served with summons on 30th September 2021, which were forwarded to its external lawyers on 5th October 2021. The last day to file an application for unconditional leave to appear and defend fell on Sunday 10th October 2021, automatically extending to Monday 11th October 2021. The applicant's desk officer at the law firm failed to file the application by the deadline because he was attending a burial in Adjumani District from 8th to 11th October 2021. The application was filed one day late on 12th October 2021. Default judgment was entered against the applicant on 19th October 2021. The applicant then brought this application to set aside the default judgment, seeking extension of time and validation of its belatedly filed application for leave to appear and defend.

Issues

  1. Whether the default judgment entered on 19th October 2021 should be set aside.
  2. Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to file its application for leave to appear and defend.
  3. Whether the application for unconditional leave to appear and defend filed on 12th October 2021 should be validated.
  4. Whether the applicant has disclosed a bona fide defence with triable issues to warrant grant of unconditional leave to appear and defend.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The judgment and decree in the main suit (HCCS No. 272 of 2021) entered for the respondent is set aside.
  • The applicant is granted unconditional leave to appear and defend HCCS No. 272 of 2021.
  • The costs of this application shall abide the outcome in the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Default Judgment — Advocate's Negligence — Whether Sufficient Cause
A mistake, negligence, oversight or error on the part of counsel should not be visited on the litigant and constitutes sufficient cause entitling the court to exercise its discretion to set aside a default judgment so that the matter is considered on its merits, unless the litigant is privy to the default or the default results from failure on the part of the litigant to give due instructions to the advocate.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Court's Discretion Under Section 98 CPA
Under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court has power to extend time where the statute provides for such extension and the justice of the case demands it, in order to achieve the ends of justice and ensure that the substance of disputes is investigated and decided on their merits.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Grant
Under Order 36 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, unconditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit will be granted where the applicant shows that he or she has a good defence on the merits, or that a difficult point of law is involved, or that there is a dispute which ought to be tried, or a real dispute as to the amount claimed, or any other circumstances showing reasonable grounds of a bona fide defence. The applicant must demonstrate by affidavit or otherwise that there is a bona fide triable issue of fact or law.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (10)

  • Nicholas Roussos v Ghulam Hussein Habib Virani and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Philip Ongom vs Catherine Owata 2003 KALR 53
  • Re Christine Namatovu Tebajjukira [1992-93] HCB 85, (SCU)
  • Okiria Ben v Zomu Yusuf and Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 033 of 2021)
  • Makula International Ltd -vs- His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Anor [1982] HCB 11 (SC)
  • M.M.K Engineering v Mantrust Uganda Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 128 of 2012)
  • Bhaker Kotecha v. Adam Muhammed [2002]1 EA 112
  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency v. Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Children of Africa v Sarick Construction Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 134 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Umeme Limited v Justice Choudry (Miscellaneous Application No. 736 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 116 (8 August 2022)
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.