Wakilii

Zzimwe Enterprises Hardware & Construction Ltd and Others v Arvind Patel (Miscellaneous Cause No. 100 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 100 · 2026 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside warrant of arrest issued in execution proceedings arising from default judgment in Civil Suit No. 617 of 2012
Decision
Warrant of arrest set aside; respondent directed to serve Notice to Show Cause Why Execution should not issue

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 held that a warrant of arrest in execution must be set aside where the judgment creditor failed to serve the judgment debtor with a Notice to Show Cause Why Execution should not issue as required by Order 22 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, notwithstanding that the execution was not time-barred under the Limitation Act where the judgment debtor had repeatedly filed applications challenging the decree and execution proceedings.

Outcome

Warrant of arrest set aside; respondent directed to serve Notice to Show Cause Why Execution should not issue

Facts

On 14 December 2012, the respondent filed Civil Suit No. 617 of 2012 against the applicants for recovery of UGX 612,000,000 for breach of contract. The applicants were served but failed to apply for leave to appear and defend. On 30 January 2013, default judgment was entered against them, and a decree was extracted on 19 April 2013. The respondent's bill of costs was taxed at UGX 51,208,500. A warrant of arrest was issued on 19 June 2014. The applicants filed multiple applications between 2014 and 2023 seeking to stay and set aside the execution proceedings and decree, but these were either not prosecuted or dismissed. On 19 April 2023, the respondent filed EMA No. 200 of 2023 to execute the decree. On 8 August 2024, the court dismissed the applicants' Misc. Application No. 894 of 2023. On 29 September 2025, a warrant of arrest was issued without serving the applicants with a Notice to Show Cause Why Execution should not issue. The applicants then filed this application to set aside the warrant.

Issues

  1. Whether there is sufficient cause to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by the Learned Assistant Registrar against the Applicants on 29th September, 2025?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The warrant of arrest issued by the Learned Assistant Registrar against the Applicants on 29th September, 2025 vide EMA No. 200 of 2023, is hereby set aside.
  • The Respondent is directed to serve the Notice to Show Cause Why Execution should not issue upon the Applicants.
  • Each party shall bear its costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Execution — Limitation Period — Computation Where Judgment Debtor Files Multiple Applications
Where a judgment creditor has made efforts to execute a decree but has been prevented by the judgment debtor who repeatedly filed multiple applications challenging the decree and execution proceedings, the period taken to prosecute those matters must be considered in reckoning the twelve-year limitation period under Section 35(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 3(3) of the Limitation Act.
Civil Procedure — Execution — Notice to Show Cause — Mandatory Requirement
Where an application for execution is made more than one year after the date of the decree, the court must issue a Notice to Show Cause Why Execution should not issue to the judgment debtor as required by Order 22 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules. A warrant of arrest issued without such notice must be set aside, notwithstanding that the judgment debtor excluded themselves from the original hearing by failing to apply for leave to appear and defend.
Civil Procedure — Natural Justice — Right to Be Heard Before Warrant of Arrest Issues
A warrant of arrest should always be preceded by a notice to a person to show cause why a warrant of arrest should not issue against such person. It is only after default that such a warrant may issue without the court having heard the person first. This ensures compliance with the cardinal rule of natural justice that no one is condemned unheard.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Filing Out of Time — Validation in the Interest of Justice
Where a matter is an application in which evidence is by way of affidavits, timelines for filing a defence in Order 8 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules ought not to be strictly applied. Where the opposing party has not objected to an affidavit filed out of time or pleaded any prejudice, and the affidavit contains averments that lay a background of the case as per the court record, the court may validate the affidavit in the interest of justice pursuant to Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (8)

  • Turf Masters (U) Limited & 2 Others v DMK Capital Limited (HCMA No. 2294 of 2023)
  • Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank Ltd (HCMA No. 333 of 2010)
  • Dr. Lam Lagoro James v Muni University (HCMC No. 07 of 2016)
  • James Mufumbiro v Unilever (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 27 of 2023)
  • Green Pastures Limited v The Cooperative Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (Miscellaneous Application No. 172 of 2015)
  • Standard Chartered Bank Uganda Limited v Gian Singh Bhambra (HCMA No. 32 of 2022)
  • COMESA Technology (U) Limited v David G. Mushabe (H.C Execution Civil Appeal No. 1906 of 2013)
  • Buwembo Sarah Kakumba v Samuel Kiwanuka & Another (H.C. Execution Civil Appeal No. 1670 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Zzimwe Enterprises Hardware & Construction Ltd and Others v Arvind Patel (Miscellaneous Cause No. 100 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 100 (27 March 2026)
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.