Vegol (U) Limited v Sentongo (Miscellaneous Application No. 72 of 2020)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The court held that the trial Registrar erred in entering judgment for liquidated demand under Order 9 rule 6 and judgment in default under Order 9 rules 8 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules in a suit seeking declarations of land ownership. The proper procedure was Order 9 rules 10 and 11(2). The court found that the applicant's counsel's miscalculation of time for filing defence should not be visited on the litigant where the applicant exercised due diligence in instructing counsel. The ex-parte judgment, judgment in default, and decrees were set aside, and the applicant's written statement of defence and counter claim were validated.

Outcome

Ex-parte judgment and judgment in default set aside; defence and counter claim validated; matter to proceed to hearing on merits

Facts

The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 25 of 2019 seeking a declaration of ownership of land comprised in Kyaggwe Block 115 Plot 743 at Kyungu, Mukono, together with special damages, general damages, and other relief. Summons to file defence was served on the applicant on 19 February 2019. The applicant instructed counsel on 27 February 2019 to file a defence. Counsel erroneously computed the 15-day period from the date of instruction rather than from the date of service, resulting in the defence being filed on 13 March 2019. Meanwhile, on 11 March 2019, the respondent applied for judgment for liquidated demand and judgment in default, which the trial Registrar entered on 13 March 2019. The applicant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 84 of 2019 to set aside the judgments, but it was dismissed for want of prosecution on 24 February 2020. The applicant then filed the present application on 9 March 2020 seeking the same relief.

Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte judgment and judgment in default entered against the Applicant in Civil Suit No. 25 of 2019 should be set aside.
2. Whether the resultant decree should be set aside.
3. Whether the Applicant can be allowed to file its defence.

Orders

• Judgment for the liquidated demand entered in Civil Suit No. 25 of 2019 under Order 9 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the decree thereunder are set aside.
• Judgment in default in Civil Suit No. 25 of 2019 entered under Order 9 rules 8 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the decree thereunder are set aside.
• The Applicant is granted leave to file its defence and counter claim out of time.
• The written statement of defence and counter claim already on court record are validated.
• The Applicant is directed to serve the Respondent and counter Defendants with the validated written statement of defence and counter claim within 7 days from the date of this ruling.
• Each party shall bear their own costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (13)

• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 28
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 126(2)(e)
• Judicature Act Cap. 13 s.33
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 9 rule 6
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 9 rule 8
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 9 rule 9
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 9 rule 10
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 9 rule 11(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 9 rule 12
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 9 rule 17
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 9 rule 18
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 9 rule 27
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 19 rule 3

Cases cited (13)

• Muyonjo & Janet v Registered Trustees of Namirembe Diocese (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1993)
• Roussos v Gulam Hussein Habib & Nazimudin Habib Virani (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
• Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Anor [1982] HCB 11
• Narittam Bhatia & Anor v Boutique Shazim Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 3 of 2007)
• Shanti v Hindocha & Others [1973] EA 207
• Florence Nabatanzi v. Naome Binsobedde
• Hikima Kyamanywa v Sajjabi Chris (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 1 of 1006)
• Crane Finance Co Ltd v Makerere Properties (Supreme Court Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2001)
• Saggu v Roadmaster Cycles (U) Ltd (2002) 1 EA 258
• Sutton v R [1957] EA 812
• Andrew Bamanya v Shamsherali Zaver (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 70 of 2001)
• Capt Philip Ongom v Catherine Nyero Owota (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2001)
• Kananura v Kaijuka (Civil Reference No. 15 of 2016)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Ouchoro v Fast Track Financial Services Limited (Miscellaneous Cause 27 of 2022)

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