Watujo and another v Centenary RuraL Development Bank (Miscellaneous Application 479 of 2023)

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.

Holding

An application for leave to appear and defend filed after default judgment has been entered is overtaken by events. Once default judgment is entered, the applicants no longer have an opportunity to defend the suit. The only opportunity to appear and defend arises when the default judgment has been set aside. The application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed as overtaken by events due to entry of default judgment

Facts

The Respondent bank sued the Applicants under summary procedure for recovery of UGX 627,554,460. The Applicants were served with summons on 12th December 2022 (per Respondent) or 19th December 2022 (per Applicants). The Applicants filed an application for unconditional leave to appear and defend on 10th January 2023. The Registrar entered default judgment on 15th February 2023. The Applicants argued they were not indebted, that the loan was being repaid in installments by mutual agreement due to Covid-19, and that the 2nd Applicant (a guarantor) was wrongly sued as the principal had not defaulted. The Respondent argued the application was filed out of time (29 days after service instead of the required 10 days) and that default judgment had already been entered.

Issues

1. Whether the Applicants raise triable issues to warrant the granting of unconditional leave to appear and defend.

Orders

• Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 Rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 Rule 4
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rule 3
• Contract Act s.68

Cases cited (2)

• Paul Kasagga and Another v Barclays Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 113 of 2008)
• China Railway No3 Engineering Group Ltd v Segken Services Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 161 of 2020)

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